Age As An Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition: January 2008

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/241483609
Age as an Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition
Article · January 2008
CITATIONS READS
14 267
1 author:
Krishna Bista
School of Education and Urban Studies, Maryland
56 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Book: International Student Mobility and Opportunities for Growth in the Global Marketplace View project
Workshop/Webinar Series: International Students View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Krishna Bista on 08 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of International Students, an academic, interdisciplinary, and peer-reviewed
publication (Print ISSN 2162-3104 & Online ISSN 2166-3750), publishes narrative,
theoretical, and empirically-based research articles, student and faculty reflections,
study abroad experiences, and book reviews relevant to international students and their
cross-cultural experiences and understanding in international education.
Journal of International Students | 2019 Vol. 9 | Issue 1

Bista/Glass
"#$%&'!()%*&'
"#$%&!'(!)*+&&
()%*&'+,$+-.%#/
,$%&#-+!.%&/+
!
!
01*(!2341(!5!678$9+$: ;<52 !
!"#$%&'(")((
*%+,$%&+*"%&'((
-+#.,%+-
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (
!!A Quarterly Publication on International Education
! ! !
=>>7&&!/#%&!?19$-+*!1-*%-7!+/@!#//A@331?7B(1$C3?%&
!
!
!
!
!
!
JIS Board Member Publications https://jistudents.org/board/
Copyright © 2019 by Journal of International Students
All rights reserved. This journal is a STAR Scholars Network publication.
Print ISSN 2162-3104

Online ISSN 2166-3750
Published by: STAR SCHOLARS NETWORK
http://ojed.org/jis
Disclaimer
Facts and opinions published in Journal of International Students (JIS)
express solely the opinions of the respective authors. Authors are
responsible for their citing of sources and the accuracy of their references
and bibliographies. The editors cannot be held responsible for any lacks or
possible violations of third parties’ rights.
,7/896/32(+534(
KGG4@!;5L;MN5<O!J$%-/3!KGG4@!;5LLMNQR<!P-*%-7!!
;<52 01*9]7!2!49]87$!5!
D!0&1'$23!&/!,$*#'$2*%&$23!"*1)#$*4!
#//A@331?7B(1$C3?%&!
)9:;756<,7/896=*;=>?/5@!
5'%4.$2!6%4*27!8&'92$!"*2*#!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=!
-5;/96(,7/896!!
-.'%4!>?!@32447!A3)!B&C%$%&$!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=!
-5;/96(>9AB(,7/896!!
0&<!62$D'&/*7!!(CE&'%2!"*2*#!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=!
C3;3D/;D(,7/896!!!
F21'2!"&134G<7!A3)!B&C%$%&$!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=!
E697:18/9;(,7/896(
H2*23%#!-'1I7!A3)!B&C%$%&$!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=
,.*+"$*&'(&.F*-"$G(H"&$.(IJKLM=JKJJN!
5(! ^$(!^+E%B!T(!^%!_+$%+`!=&&1>%+/7!0%>7!J$1E1&/![1$!K-/7$-+/%1-+*!UB9>+/%1-`!:86-7!:"=!
;(! ^$(!=-7/+!S+:7&`!^%$7>/1$!1[!J$1C$+]&!Wa)!+-B!_=Y`!5##3#!:$%;#'4%*<7!:5!
N(! ^$(!S1H+$B!V+-C`!=&&1>%+/7!^7+-`!B1J#!51$4.2$!:$%;#'4%*<7!-.%$2!
O(! ^$(!'+#9*!"#19B+#+`!U0J!1[!)*18+*!U-C+C7]7-/!b!'7&7+$>#`!"*1)<K&'*2347!:"=!
R(! ^$(!"+/#7$%-7!)1]7&`!=&&1>%+/7!J$1[7&&1$`!>8,L!:$%;#'4%*<7!=14*'23%2!
L(! ^$(!'+?%I+!.#+-B+$%`!"#$%&'!=);%4&'7!,$4*%*1*#!&/!,$*#'$2*%&$23!()1D2*%&$7!:"=!
Q(! ^$(!S7*7-!61$87&M_7H7//`!^%&>%A*%-7!S7+B`!8&$24.!:$%;#'4%*<7!=14*'23%2!
c(! ^$(!4%C7*!S+$H11B`!'7+B7$!%-!=AA*%7B!T%-C9%&/%>&`!:$%;#'4%*<!&/!".#//%#3)7!:5!
2(! ^$(!=-/#1-:!"(!PCB7-`!=0J![1$!)*18+*!U-C+C7]7-/`!:$%;#'4%*<!&/!M<&C%$97!:"=!
5<(! ^$(!.1?+-+!J7/$%>`!S7+B!1[!^7A/(!1[!=T"`!.%$I87>I!:$%;#'4%*<!&/!F&$)&$7!:5!
55(! ^$(!_7C+-!_(!G%>d7I`!^%$7>/1$!1[!U=J`!L.#!@#&'9#!M24.%$9*&$!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=!
5;(! ^$(!T%*:!T7%!e7`!=&&1>%+/7!J$1[7&&1$`!6#%N%$9!,$4*%*1*#!&/!O24.%&$!L#D.$&3&9<7!-.%$2!
5N(! ^$(!T:!F$+-`!=&&1>%+/7!J$1[7&&1$`!G>#11*!1[!UB9>+/%1-`!B#2J%$!:$%;#'4%*<7!=14*'23%2!
5O(! ^$(!T:B%+!=-B$+B7`!J$1[7&&1$!b!"#+%$`!:$%;#'4%*<!&/!*.#!,$D2'$2*#!M&')7!:"=!
5R(! ^$(!G/9+$/!F+--1>I`!G7-%1$!T7>/9$7$`!:$%;#'4%*<!-&33#9#!F&$)&$7!:5!
5L(! ^$(!T%7-!J#+]7!F#D*1'#'7!:$%;#'4%*<!&/!L#D.$&3&9<!"<)$#<7!=14*'23%2!
5Q(! ^$(!X+-7/!K*%7E+`!619-B7$3^%$7>/1$`!()1D2*%&$!,$4%9.*7!a,!
PQ?! ^$(!e%-C:%!_+`!=&&1>%+/7!J$1[7&&1$`!"<'2D14#!:$%;#'4%*<7!:"=!
Associate Editors/Section Editors (2019-2021)
1. Dr. Anesa Hosein, Higher Education, University of Surrey, UK

2. Dr. CindyAnn Rose-Redwood, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada
3. Dr. Christina W. Yao, Educational Administration, U. of Nebraska- Lincoln, USA
4. Dr. Helen Forbes-Mewett, Sociology, Monash University, Australia
5. Dr. Reuben Rose-Redwood, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada
6. Dr. Yi Leaf Zhang, Higher Education, University of Texas at Arlington, USA
7. Dr. Yingyi Ma, Asian/Asian America Studies, Syracuse University, USA
8. Dr. Nelson Brunsting, Research & Assessment, Wake Forest University, USA
Copy Editors (2019-2021)
1. Joy Bancroft, Daytona State Collage, USA

2. Dr. Barry Fass-Holmes, University of California, San Diego, USA
3. Dr. Keenan Manning, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
4. Dr. Minghui Hou, Idaho State University, USA
5. Dr. Dorota Silber-Furman, Tennessee Tech University, USA
6. Dr. Linda Tsevi, University of Ghana, Ghana
7. Dr. Caroline Wekullo, Texas A&M University, USA
8. Dr. Jing Xiaoli, McGill University, Canada
Assistant Editors/Consulting Editors
1. Dr. Charles R. Harris, Stony Brook University, USA

2. Dr. Charlotte Foster, Sylvian Learning, USA
3. Dr. Danilo M. Baylen, University of West Georgia, USA
4. Dr. David Comp, Columbia College Chicago, USA
5. Dr. Diana B. Carlin, Saint Louis University, USA
6. Dr. Diana B. Carlin, Saint Louis University, USA
7. Dr. Gina J. Mariano, Troy University, USA
8. Dr. Hugo Garcia, Texas Tech University, USA
9. Dr. Ji Zhou, USC Marshall School of Business, USA
10. Dr. Jiaqi Li, Wichita State University, USA
11. Dr. Keri Dutkiewicz, Davenport University, USA
12. Dr. Lisa Kahle-Piasecki, Tiffin Univesity, USA
13. Dr. Luchen Li, Northeastern University, USA
14. Dr. M. O. Thirunarayanan, Florida International University, USA
15. Dr. Miguel H. López, California State University, San Bernardino, USA
16. Dr. Mingsheng Li, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
17. Dr. Nicholas D. Hartlep, Metropolitan State University, USA
18. Dr. Peggy Gesing, Eastern Virginia Medical School, USA
19. Dr. Rosalind L. Raby, California Colleges for International Education, USA
20. Dr. Sandria Officer, University of Toronto, Canada
21. Dr. Sherrie Lee, University of Waikato, New Zealand
22. Dr. Shyam Sharma, Stony Brook University, US
23. Dr. Steven Fraiberg, Michigan State University, USA
24. Dr. Uttam Gaulee, Morgan State University, USA
PEER-REVIEW BOARD (None of us is as smart as all of us)
1. Dr. Adem Soruc, Sakarya University, Turkey (2/2018-2/2021)

2. Dr. Adriana Encinas, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain (2/2018-2/2021)
3. Mr. Alexis Croffie, Texas Tech University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
4. Dr. Alex Kumi-Yeboah, SUNY at Albany, USA (second term 2/2018-2/2021)
5. Dr. Allenda Zionch, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
6. Dr. Allison BrckaLorenz, Indiana University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
7. Dr. Amanda E. Brunson, Illinois State University, USA (7/2017-7/2020)
8. Dr. Amir Alakaam, University of North Dakota, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
9. Dr. Amir Reza, Babson College, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
10. Dr. Amy Dagley, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
11. Ms. Ann-Margaret J. Themistocleous, Anderson University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
12. Ms. Anna Beketova, Ural Federal University, Russia (1/2018-1/2021)
13. Dr. Anh Le, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
14. Dr. Arlene S. Young, Centenary College, NJ, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
15. Dr. Bala Nikku, Nepal School of Social Work, Nepal (1/2018-1/2021)
16. Dr. Barry Fass-Holmes, University of California San Diego, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
17. Ms. Bettina Baldt, University of Vienna, Austria (1/2018-1/2021)
18. Dr. Bo Chang, Ball State University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
19. Dr. Caitlin Faas, Mount St. Mary’s University, USA (second term 2/2018-2/2021)
20. Dr. Carol Ashong, Georgia State University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
21. Dr. Carolyn Walker, University of Exeter, UK (1/2018-1/2021)
22. Dr. Carrie Anne Thomas, Purdue University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
23. Dr. Chanwoong Baek, Columbia University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
24. Dr. Charles Myers, Eastern Kentucky University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
25. Dr. Chen Wang, University of Ottawa, Canada (1/2018-1/2021)
26. Dr. Cheryl DuBose, Arkansas State University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
27. Dr. Christine Fiorite, Joliet Junior College, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
28. Dr. Christine Preble, University at Albany, USA (second term 2/2018-2/2021)
29. Dr. Christopher Sullivan, University of MO St. Louis, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
30. Dr. Christof Van Mol, Tilburg University, the Netherlands (1/2018-1/2021)
31. Dr. Cindy Aamlid, Southwest Minnesota State University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
32. Dr. Clayton Smith, University of Windsor, Canada (2/2018-2/2021)
33. Dr. Daljit Kaur, Francis Marion University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
34. Dr. Dan Dickman, Ivy Tech Community College, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
35. Mr. David Lausch, University of Wyoming, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
36. Dr. David Pang, University of Auckland, New Zealand (second term 2/2018-2/2021)
37. Dr. Doaa Rashed, University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
38. Dr. David Starr-Glass, SUNY Empire State College, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
39. Dr. Deborah Sipe, Chemeketa Community College, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
40. Ms. Dina Ghazzzawi, University of Houston, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
41. Dr. Dongmei Li, University of Texas at Austin, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
42. Dr. Dorota Silber-Furman, Tennessee Tech University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
43. Dr. Elena Yakunina, University at Buffalo, USA (2nd term-2/2018-2/2021)
44. Dr. Emma Bird, University of the West of England, UK (2/2018-2/2021)
45. Dr. Emmanuel Akanwa, Central Michigan University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
46. Dr. Enakshi Sengupta, American U. of Kurdistan, Iraq (2nd term 2/2018-2/2021)
47. Dr. Ewnetu Tamene, Zhejiang Normal University, China (2/2018-2/2021)
48. Dr. Farid Safarmamad, Old Dominion University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
49. Ms. Feba Thomas, VIT University, India (2/2018-2/2021)
50. Dr. Fjujan Tan, Morehead State University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
51. Dr. Gareth Phillips, University of Technology, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
52. Dr. Gabriela Valdez, University of Arizona, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
53. Dr. Gina J. Mariano, Troy University, USA (2nd term 2/2018-2/2021)
54. Dr. Gwendolyn Williams, University of West Florida, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
55. Dr. Haijun Kang, Kansas State University, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
56. Dr. Hannah Covert, Tulane University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
57. Dr. Heather Carmack, University of Alabama, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
58. Dr. Hugo Gonzales, University of Notre Dame, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
59. Dr. Howard Martyn, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China
60. Dr. Huei-Chen Helena Yeh, St. John’s U., Taiwan (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
61. Dr. Injung Lee, University of Iowa, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
62. Dr. James Dorsett, Michigan State University, USA (7/2017-7/2020)
63. Dr. Jane Rosenthal, Keck Graduate Institute, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
64. Dr. Jason Li, Wichita State University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
65. Dr. Jason Chan, Missouri U. of Sc.and Tech., USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
66. Dr. Jeevan Khanal, Institute for Frontier Studies, Korea (2/2018-2/2021)
67. Dr. Jeff Koloze, Notre Dame College, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
68. Dr. Jeff C. Davis, Kent State University, USA (7/2017-7/2020)
69. Dr. Jennifer Hoyte, Florida Int. University, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
70. Dr. Jiali Luo, Duke University, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
71. Dr. Jie Zheng, East China Normal University, China (2/2018-2/2021)
72. Dr. Jin Hwang, Sam H. State University, USA (second term 2/2018-2/2021)
73. Dr. Jose Cristina M. Parina, De La Salle U. Philippines (2nd term 2/2018-2/2021)
74. Dr. Juanjuan Zhao, University of Cincinnati, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
75. Mr. Jun Mian Chen, Brock University, Canada (2/2018-2/2021)
76. Dr. Kakali Bhattacharya, Kansas State University (4/2018-4/2021)
77. Dr. Kenneth Hayes, Shangqiu Institute of Technology, China (2/2018-2/2021)
78. Dr. Khanh Tran, Asia Pacific International College, Australia (2/2018-2/2021)
79. Dr. Kris Aric Knisely, Emory University, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
80. Dr. Kristy Modrow, St. Cloud State University, USA (7/2017-7/2020)
81. Dr. Leah Gustilo, De La Salle University, the Philippines (2/2018-2/2021)
82. Ms. Leanne Moore, Abilene Christian University, USA ((2/2018-2/2021)
83. Dr. Lesley Robinson, Colorado State University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
84. Dr. Leslie Glickman, University of Delaware, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
85. Dr. Libi Shen, University of Phoenix, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
86. Dr. Linda Tsevi, University of Ghana, Ghana (2/2018-2/2021)
87. Dr. Ling Gao LeBeau, West Carolina University, USA (second term 2/2018-2/2021
88. Ms. Lisa Unangst, Boston College, USA (5/2018-5/20121)
89. Dr. L. G. Michael Brown, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA (7/2017-7/2020)
90. Dr. Lisa Kahle-Piasecki, Tiffin University, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
91. Dr. Manjet K. M. Singh, University Sains Malaysia, Penang (2/2018-2/2021)
92. Dr. Martha Vungkhanching, Cal. State U., Fresno, USA (2nd term 2/2018-2/2021)
93. Dr. Michelle E. Bartlett, North Carolina State University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
94. Ms. Mila Arden, Victoria University, Australia (7/1/2017-7/1/2020)
95. Ms. Nancy Li Will, University of Washington, USA (second term, 2/2018-2/2021)
96. Dr. Natalie Marie Novick, U. of California San Diego, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
97. Dr. Nelson Brunsting, Wake Forest University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
98. Dr. Oriana Johnson, North Carolina State University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
99. Dr. Osman Ozturgut, University of the Incarnate Word, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
100. Dr. Ourania Katsara, University of Patras, Greece (2/2018-2/2021)
101. Dr. Paul Branscum, Miami University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
102. Dr. Peggy Gesing, Old Dominion University, USA (1/2/2018-1/2/2021)
103. Dr. Peter Bodycott, University of Canberra, Australia (2/2018-2/2021)
104. Dr. Prabin Shrestha, Norvic International Hospital, Nepal (1/2/2018-1/2/2021)
105. Dr. Prashanti Chennamsetti, Texas A&M University, USA (1/2/2018-1/2/2021)
106. Dr. Rashmi Sharma, University of West Florida, USA (1/2/2018-1/2/2021)
107. Dr. Rebecca Hammer, Int’l. Baccalaureate, the Netherlands (2/2018-2/2021)
108. Dr. Regine Lambrech, International Education Consulting, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
109. Dr. Ricardo Gonzalez-Carriedo, University of North Texas, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
110. Mr. Roger Anderson, Ohio State University, USA (Second term 1/2/2018-1/2/2021)
111. Mr. Roy Y. Chan, Indiana University, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
112. Mr. Ruhi Can Alkin, Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey (11/2017-11/2020)
113. Dr. Rukhsana Ahmed, University of Ottawa, Canada (2/2018-2/2021)
114. Dr. Sagar Athota, University of Notre Dame, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
115. Mr. Samar Aldhahari, University of Memphis, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
116. Dr. Samit D. Bordoloi, Western Washington University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
117. Mr. Santiago Castiello-Gutierrez, University of Arizona, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
118. Dr. Sanoya Amienyi, Arkansas State University, USA (second term 2/2018-2/2021)
119. Dr. Sarah Nutter, University of Calgary, Canada, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
120. Dr. Sean Roberson, Morgan State University, USA (1/2018-1/2021)
121. Ms. Sherrie Lee, University of Waikato, New Zealand (2/2018-2/2021)
122. Ms. Soni Adhikari, Stony Brook University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
123. Dr. Sora H. Friedman, SIT Graduate Institute, USA (3/2017-8/2020)
124. Dr. Susan Boafo-Arthur, Assumption College, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
125. Dr. Svitlana Taraban-Gordon, U. of Waterloo, Canada (2nd term 2/2018-2/2021)
126. Dr. Tara Madden-Dent, Sierra Nevada College, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
127. Dr. Terra Gargano, American University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
128. Dr. Thea Zander, The University of Basel, Switzerland (2/2018-2/2021)
129. Ms. Tiffanie Ho, Univesity of Louisiana at Monroe, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
130. Ms. Xi Lin, Auburn University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
131. Mr. Xun Liu, Texas Tech University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
132. Dr. Yao Fu, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
133. Ms. Yibo Yang, Murdoch University, Australia (2/2018-2/2021)
134. Dr. Yolanda Palmer-Clarke, University of Saskatchewan, Canada (2/2018-2/2021)
135. Dr. Yukari Amos, Central Washington University, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
136. Mr. Zachary Taylor, University of Texas at Austin, USA (2/2018-2/2021)
137. Dr. Zheng Zhu, NY City College of Technology, USA (Second term 2/2018-2/2021)
!
*;75P/;D
KGG4@!;5L;MN5<O!J$%-/3!KGG4@!;5LLMNQR<!P-*%-7!!
;<52!01*9]7!2!49]87$!5!
D!0&1'$23!&/!,$*#'$2*%&$23!"*1)#$*4!
#//A@331?7B(1$C3?%&!
=**!+$/%>*7&!A98*%&#7B!%-!/#7!0&1'$23!&/!,$*#'$2*%&$23!"*1)#$*4!+$7!%-B7Z7B!+-B!*%&/7B!%-!]+?1$!
B+/+8+&7&!+-B!&19$>7&@!
!
Ga.XU"F@!Uâ"=FKP4!j!SK)SU'! ÛVUe!k!NQc!
!
! 5<3<53;<55M!
"U^'P_!G4K! o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!WaG!=>+B7]%>!
o! U9$7I+(>>`!<53<53;<5QM! G98&>$%A/%1-Y`!5<3<53;<55M!
o! U9$1A$7&&7(>1]`!<53<53;<5QM! o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!"#%-+`!5<3<53;<55M!
^%$7>/1$:!1[!PA7-!=>>7&&!X19$-+*&! o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!U&&7-/%+*&`!
o! ^%$7>/1$:!1[!PA7-!=>>7&&!X19$-+*&`! 5<3<53;<55M!
;<55M! o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!,1$7+`!5<3<53;<55M!
U.G"P#1&/!
o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!G/9B7-/`!
o! UB9>+/%1-!G19$>7`!<N3<53;<5;M! 5<3<53;<55M!
)+*7!
o! J$1m97&/!'7&7+$>#!T%8$+$:`!
o! =>+B7]%>!P-76%*7`!<23<53;<55M! 5<3<53;<55M!
o! "1-/7]A1$+$:!V1]7-l&!K&&97&`! o! J$1m97&/!'7&7+$>#!T%8$+$:!
<23<53;<55M! W"1$A1$+/7Y`!5<3<53;<55M!
o! UB9>+/1$l&!'7[7$7->7!"1]A*7/7`! o! J$1m97&/!G1>%+*!G>%7->7&!J$7]%9]!
<23<53;<55M! "1**7>/%1-`!5<3<53;<55M!
o! UZA+-B7B!=>+B7]%>!=G=J`! o! J$1m97&/!G1>%+*!G>%7->7&!J$7]%9]!
<23<53;<55M! "1**7>/%1-!M!a,!"9&/1]7$&`!
o! K-[1F$+>!"9&/1]`!<23<53;<55M! 5<3<53;<55M!
_9*/%A*7!07-B1$&! o! '7&7+$>#!T%8$+$:!W=*9]-%!UB%/%1-Y`!
o! 6$77*:!=>>7&&%8*7!G1>%+*!G>%7->7! 5<3<53;<55M!
X19$-+*&`!;<55M! o! '7&7+$>#!T%8$+$:!"#%-+`!5<3<53;<55M!
J$1m97&/!
o! '7&7+$>#!T%8$+$:!J$7A`!5<3<53;<55M!
o! UB9>+/%1-!"1**7>/%1-`!5<3<53;<55M! o! G1>%+*!G>%7->7!J$7]%9]!"1**7>/%1-`!
o! UB9>+/%1-!^+/+8+&7`!5<3<53;<55M! 5<3<53;<55M!
o! UB9>+/%1-!^+/+8+&7!W=*9]-%! "*+$%E+/7!=-+*:/%>&!
UB%/%1-Y`!5<3<53;<55M! o! V78!1[!G>%7->7!
o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*`!5<3<53;<55M! o! U]7$%-C!G>%7->7&!"%/+/%1-!K-B7Z!
o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!M!a,!"9&/1]7$&`! o! S%C#7$!UB9>+/%1-!=8&/$+>/&!
5<3<53;<55M! !
o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!W=*9]-%!UB%/%1-Y`! "&1'D#`!:3'%D.4V#G!@3&G23!"#'%234!B%'#D*&'<
5<3<53;<55M!
o! J$1m97&/!"7-/$+*!W"1$A1$+/7Y`!
!
"#$!%&'!&(()**!+,)!-./0+!&012#.!1/3/+&4!(#-/)*!#5!+,) !"#$%&'(")(*%+,$%&+-"%&'(.+#/,%+0 5.#%!678!4/9.&./)* :#.41:/1);
12,(!"#$%&'(")(*%+,$%&+-"%&'(.+#/,%+0!<=./0+!>??@!ABCADEBF6!G!H04/0)!>??@!ABCCDEIJFK!/*!&!
%)%9).! #5! +,)!?LMN! ?(,#4&.*! @)+:#.O!H-)0! P#$.0&4*! /0! Q1$(&+/#0! <HPQRKS! &!HP?!
E!-4&+5#.%!5#.!2-3245#&'-+67(8,,$4$,9-,:,/(&(&1)%/(!T#$.0&4*!/0!)1$(&+/#0;!
P>?! /*! &!U#41! H-)0! M(()**!T#$.0&4! &01! /01)V)1! /0! %&T#.! &(&1)%/(! 1&+&9&*)*!+#! %&V/%/W)!
&.+/(4)!1/*(#X).&9/4/+'!&01!(/+&+/#0;!P>?!5#44#:*!9)*+!-.&(+/()*!#0!-$94/(&+/#0!)+,/(*!#$+4/0)1!/0!
+,)!YH=Q!Y#1)!#5!Y#01$(+;!Q1/+#.*!:#.O!+#!)0*$.)!+/%)4'!1)(/*/#0*!&5+).!/0/+/&4!*$9%/**/#0S!
&*!:)44!&*!-.#%-+!-$94/(&+/#0!#04/0)!/5!&!%&0$*(./-+!/*!&(()-+)1!5#.!-$94/(&+/#0;!
Z-#0!-$94/(&+/#0!&.+/(4)*!&.)!/%%)1/&+)4'!&01!5.))4'!&X&/4&94)!+#!+,)!-$94/(;!L,)!5/0&4!X).*/#0!
#5! &.+/(4)*! (&0! /%%)1/&+)4'! 9)! -#*+)1! +#! &0! /0*+/+$+/#0&4! .)-#*/+#.'! #.! +#! +,)! &$+,#.[*! #:0!
:)9*/+)!&*!4#03!&*!+,)!&.+/(4)!/0(4$1)*!&!4/0O!9&(O!+#!+,)!#./3/0&4!&.+/(4)!-#*+)1!#0!HPQR;!!
@#0)!#5!+,)!HPQR!T#$.0&4*!(,&.3)!5))*!+#!/01/X/1$&4!&$+,#.*!+,&0O*!+#!+,)!3)0).#$*!*$--#.+!
#5!#$.!/0*+/+$+/#0&4!*-#0*#.*;!
!"#$%&#'()#$*+%"#,-'*"+!!
Q1/+#./&4!H55/()!
!"#$%&'(")(*%+,$%&+-"%&'(.+#/,%+0(
H41!R#%/0/#0!Z0/X).*/+'!
AEF8!Q1$(&+/#0!\$/41/03!
@#.5#4OS!]M!AEJA8!
ZN^_!,++-_22#T)1;#.32T/*!
QD%&/4_!(#0+&(+`T/*+$1)0+*;#.3!
!
!
!
"##$%!&'(&)*'+,!-./012!"##$%!&'(()*34+!506/07 !
&+'8!9:6;<7!8!$;<=7.!'
>!!"#$%&'(")(*%+,$%&+-"%&'(.+#/,%+0
?11@%22:A7BC:.D2A/E
!
"#$%&!'(!)'*"&*"+!
!
&,-"'.-#%!
!
'! F?7!$7G1!F70!H7I.E%!J::K/0D!LIMKN!J::K/0D!O:.PI.B! /)///!
! 12$-0(34(5'&006(7$-02%&(8-0+&( !
!
! !
.&+&#.)/!#."-)%&+!
!
&! #1I1/E1/MI6!Q0I6RE/E!:S!#1;BR!Q=.:IB!TG@7./70M7E!:S!"017.0I1/:0I6! ')'Y!
#1;B701E!/0!O/U7!VIA:.!W:E1!X:;01./7E!:S!T;.:@7!
! !"0,9(:-9#';<6(.=">"/"=;(!-+9&( !
(
*! Z[7!I.7!I!D?:E1!/0!1?7!M6IEEC\%!O/.E1!H7I.!"017.0I1/:0I6!#1;B701E]! '8)*Y!
TG@7./70M7E!/0!1?7!^6:=I6!X:01IM1!_:07!
! 7,$-(?$,,@&%6(:-%A'-%(B-( !
(
,! QE/I0!"017.0I1/:0I6!#1;B701!I0B!QE/I0!Q<7./MI0!#1;B701%!V/E1IK70! *8)(4!
"B701/1R!I0B!ÌM/I6!V/M.:IDD.7EE/:0E!
! CD,!-%(E-%&(F,"6(3#>D(:,%/,%2&''6(.+&GD(H%%,(C&$I""/6( !
:&$A&$,+(8$"I%,(C#%++
!
! X.:EE)T1?0/M!#76S)a/EM6:E;.7!L;SS7./0D!$7DI1/U7!"<@IM1E!:S! (()Y*!
4! -.7A;B/M7!:0!"017.0I1/:0I6!#1;B701Eb!-ERM?:6:D/MI6!I0B!#:M/I6![766)
L7/0D!
! E&+0#D&(*@&-6(HD&9"(*@&-( !
!
(! OIM;61R!9/7PE!:0!"017.0I1/:0I6!#1;B701E%!Q!#;.U7R!#1;BR! Y,)8(!
! B-(!-%6(!&0"%(.G2%,-/,$( !
!
3! V701:.E!1?I1!VI117.%!"017.0I1/:0I6!#1;B701!J7IB7.E?/@!a7U76:@<701! 83)''+!
I0B!V701:.!`:67E!
! E$-G-&(3(.2&'9&6(12'",(.(1"$G"$&%6(8$-&%(E(:&A,,( !
!
Y! #?I.7B!TG@7./70M7E!I0B!`7E/6/70M7!:S!X;61;.I6!W7./1ID7%!X?/07E7! ''')'&Y!
#1;B701E]!#:M/I6!"017.IM1/:0!P/1?!$:0)W:E1)$I1/:0I6E!/0!1?7!c0/17B!
#1I17E!
! F&%A(B-#6(F#,(J"%A( !
(
8! -.7UI670M7!I0B!X:..76I17E!:S!a7@.7EE/U7!#R<@1:<E!Q<:0D! '&8)',8!
"017.0I1/:0I6!#1;B701E%!"<@6/MI1/:0E!S:.!c0/U7.E/1R!#;@@:.1!5SS/M7E!
! K",'(B4(.2&/"I,%6(H$-,'(H4(L-''-&@0"%6(K&%GD(54(5#,$$&6( !
3&=-G2&%/$&%(H@@-A&%6(:&++2,I(B4(J$,M',$!
10 Helping international master’s students navigate dissertation 150-171
supervision: Research-informed discussion and awareness-raising
activities
Nigel Harwood, Bojana Petrić
11 Academic and Social Support Services for International Students: 172-191

Current Practices
Nara M. Martirosyan, Rebecca Bustamante, D. Patrick Saxon
12 Needs, Expectations, and Experiences of International Students in 192-210

Pathway Programs in the United States
Eman Elturki, Yang Liu, Justyna Hjeltness, Kate Hellmann
13 Studying in the United States: Language Learning Challenges, 211-224

Strategies and Support Services
Debra M. Wolf, Linh Phung
14 The Effects of Linguistic and Demographic Features of Chinese 225-241

International Students on Placement Test Levels in Higher
Education: Logistic Regression
Eunjeong Park
15 Undergraduate International Student Enrollment Forecasting 242-261

Model: An Application of Time Series Analysis
Yu Chen, Ran Li, Linda Serra Hagedorn
16 Institutional Satisfaction and Recommendation: What Really 262-281

Matters to International Students?
Ravichandran Ammigan
17 Behavioral Health Risk and Resilience among International 282-305

Students in the United States: A Study of Socio-demographic
Differences
Youn Kyoung Kim, Arati Maleku, Catherine M Lemieux, Xi Du,
Zibei Chen
18 “Education Abroad” for International Student Advisors: What is the 306-319

impact on their professional development?
Wei Liu
19 International Undergraduate Student Engagement: Implications for 320-337

Higher Education Administrators
Caroline Sabina Wekullo
20 Opinions of International Students on Choosing a State University 338-361

in a Developing Country
Adnan Boyaci, Yakup Oz
Peer-Reviewed Article
Journal of International Students

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 1–3
© All Rights Reserved. ISSN 2162-3104 (Print), 2166-3750 (Online)
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.857
ojed.org/jis
The Next Ten Years: Looking Back,

Looking Forward
Chris Glass and Krishna Bista
As we near our tenth year as a publication, the journal’s global community continues to
grow in ways we could not have imagined when we first started. We now receive over 300
submissions per year. We are proud to be among the top-20 journals in higher education
according to GoogleScholar with almost 10,000 active subscribers around the world. As we
prepare for the next ten years, we want to share a few updates on where we have been and
where we are going. We have five major focus areas as we move forward as a publication:
• expand our global network of authors, scholars, and leaders
• design top-tier journal design and seamless editorial workflow
• build international partnerships and diversity editorial team
• create mentor pathways for emerging scholars
• develop sustainable funding and support
We have been expanding our global network of authors, scholars, and leaders. The journal
has published more than 350 authors from over 45 countries. Our Editorial Team includes
Associate Editors in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. We recently
launched a new platform, Open Journals in Education (OJED), in partnership with the
STARScholars Network. The OJED platform is the home of a growing network of high-
quality, peer-reviewed academic journals like the Journal of International Students. All
journals are gold-level open access publications indexed in major academic databases and
follow best practices on publication ethics outlined in the COPE Code of Conduct. We are
proud to be joined by the Journal of Comparative and International Education, Higher
Education Politics & Economics, the Journal of Underrepresented & Minority Progress,
the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, and the
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education. We encourage you to submit to our
partner publications.
We have also been working to create a top-tier journal design for our authors and
readers. Our new website, ojed.org/jis, is far more than a new, enhanced visual look. It also
includes the most requested features from our authors and readers, including: full-search
Corresponding authors: crglass@odu.edu (Chris Glass), krishna.bista@morgan.edu (Krishna

Bista)
2ii Glass and Bista
of back issues to increase article discoverability, an ‘Online First’ publication of articles to

website prior to print issue release, full-integration with ORCID ID for authors, article-level
analytics with COUNTER compliant usage statistics for altmetrics, automatic indexing on
Google Scholar when new issues are published, and the use of the Journal Article Tag
Suite (JATS) XML metatags and keywords that are standard in top-tier journals. Our new
manuscript submission system also improves the experience for authors and reviewers.
Each published article now has its own webpage, digital object identified (DOI) listed
in CrossRef, cut-and-paste ready formatted citations, and article-level statistics. When
website visitors use the new search feature, they now have immediate access to a dedicated
webpage with the article’s title, abstract, and author bios that match their search terms.
We have also been working on building international partnerships. We recently
announced a new Advisory Board (2019-2022) with prominent scholars and leaders
in international education. Each member of our advisory board has published
groundbreaking research in academic journals and/or popular books in the field.
Members of our advisory board include: David L. Di Maria, Aneta Hayes, Howard
Wang, Rahul Choudaha, Catherine Gomes, Rajika Bhandari, Helen Forbes-Mewett, Nigel
Harwood, Anthony C. Ogden, Bojana Petric, Megan M. Siczek, Lily Lei Ye, Lien Pham, Ly
Tran, Lydia Andrade, Stuart Tannock, Janet Ilieva, and Yingyi Ma. We are also proud to
announce a new Copyediting Team led by Senior Copyeditor, Joy Bancroft.
We continue to build our legacy by creating new mentor pathways for new and emerging
scholars. We are hosting a number of professional development webinars this semester
in partnership with the Study Abroad and International Student SIG of the Comparative
and International Education Society. Topics will include “Publication Tips: Conversation
with Journal Editors”, “Globally Connected Teaching and Learning,” and “Study Abroad:
Emerging Issues and Effective Practices.” We hope these webinars introduce emerging
scholars to the publication and peer review process. We are also developing new initiatives
for the STARScholars Network, so we can continue to advance global social mobility using
research and advocacy. Last year, over 200 dissertations were written on topics related to
international students, and we have invited each of these young scholars to participate in
our global community of scholars.
Finally, we have been working to develop sustainable funding to support the work of the
journal. We are thankful for the financial support of Old Dominion University who is the
major contributor to the journal, as well as our other supporters including the American
International Recruitment Council. Old Dominion University also provides a number
of graduate students who serve as Managing Editors and support key administrative
functions of the journal.
As you can see, the journal continues to reach new heights. We have seen the impact,
speed, and reach the journal improve – its the quality and impact, speed and publication
experience, and global authorship and readership. We are listed in Scopus, ESCI, ERIC,
ProQuest, OCLC, EBSCOHost, Thomson Reuters, Questia, Cengage, Scientific World Index,
Scimago Journal & Country Rank, Google Scholar Metrics, and Higher Education Abstracts.
All of this would be impossible to without the dedication of readers, authors, reviewers,
and an editorial team that includes people like you. Thank you for your contribution to
maintaining the high standards of the journal and being part of our global community.
The Next Ten Years: Looking Back, Looking Forward iii 3
Author biography
Chris Glass is the Senior Editor for the Journal of International Students and an Associate
Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership at Old Dominion
University.
Krishna Bista is the Founding Editor and Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of International
Studnts and an Associate Professor in the Department of Advanced Studies, Leadership
and Policy at Morgan State University.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 1–18
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.262
ojed.org/jis
Statistical Analysis of Study Abroad

Experiences of International Students in
Five Major Host Countries of Europe
Josek Mikuláša and Svobodová Jitkab
Abstract: This paper examines a large dataset of questionnaire responses (n = 5,321) of international
students who have studied abroad (mainly via the Erasmus+ programme). Their acculturation
experiences with campus discrimination (an acculturative stressor), academic support (a mediator
of acculturation) and academic satisfaction (an outcome of acculturation) are analyzed and
compared among five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal). The
measures of acculturation experiences are verified by principal component analysis, which yields
three components: campus discrimination, academic support, and academic satisfaction. The
components are used as aggregate indexes for ranking the five major destination countries in Europe
based on students’ experiences. A country-by-country comparison suggests that experiences from
study abroad are most positive in Germany.
Keywords: acculturation, academic support, campus discrimination, Erasmus+ pro-

gramme, international students, satisfaction, study abroad
Introduction
General globalization of labor markets and internationalization of higher education
have pushed students to study abroad (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Brooks & Waters, 2011;
Gürüz, 2011; King, Findlay, & Ahrens, 2010). In 2012 the number of international
students worldwide exceeded 4.5 million, which was a 100% increase since the year 2005
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2016). International
students have become an inseparable part of the student cohort at universities. In 2014
already 6% of all students in tertiary education were international students (OECD, 2016).
In Europe, compared with other parts of the world, students study abroad for a
shorter period and mostly with support of the Erasmus+ mobility programme. Despite
failing to attract the number of students that the Erasmus programme initially hoped
a Josek Mikuláš. Czech University of Life Sciences, Email: mikulas.josek@gmail.com

b Svobodová Jitka. Czech University of Life Sciences, Email: svobodovaj@pef.czu.cz
2 Mikuláš and Jitka
for, the European Union (EU) has set the goal of having 20% of university graduates
experience studying or working abroad by the year 2020 (Council of the European Union,
2011). According to the European Commission (2014), 212,208 students studied abroad
through the Erasmus+ programme in the academic year 2013–2014, a 2% increase from
the previous year. Mainly short-term exchanges are supported, where university students
go abroad for a 3- to 12-month study or work placement and receive a scholarship
during that time (European Commission, 2017). The proportion of short-term study
abroad students within Europe has increased markedly over the last 20 years (Brooks
& Waters, 2011). The European Commission (2018) suggested a 2 times larger budget
("30 billion) of the Erasmus+ programme for the upcoming period of 2021–2027. Such
an increase should contribute to fulfilling the EU’s ambitious goal of having the desired
20% of university graduates with an experience of studying or working abroad by the year
2020. However, finances in general and notably living expenses have been found to be the
most problematic areas from the point of view of international students in Europe (Perez-
Encinas, Rodriguez-Pomeda, & Josek, 2017).
National and supranational objectives of the Erasmus+ programme may not
correspond to the individual experiences of mobile students. European policies
promoting student mobilities have a clear economic aim to develop a flexible labor
market with individuals capable to work and communicate across borders. Besides this
economic objective, there is also a clear political one that tries to create a European
identity, stimulating young people to share European values. International students also
enrich countries and local communities with their different perspectives and diverse
heritage. However, Tsoukalas (2008) drew attention to the limited amount and low quality
of intercultural learning of the Erasmus students.
Despite the aim to limit the barriers and support the triggers of international
student mobility, Europe as a study abroad destination is still a place of diverse cultures
and different education systems. As a European initiative, the Erasmus+ programme
should nurture intercultural skills, linguistic abilities, autonomy, resilience, independence,
and a range of other competencies. In this paper, we look into individual perceptions and
experiences of a large sample of homecoming short-term international students who filled
in an online questionnaire called the ESNsurvey 2016 (Josek, Fernandez, Perez-Encinas,
Zimonjic, de Vocht, & Falisse, 2016). We focus on acculturation experiences with campus
discrimination, academic support, and academic satisfaction. After verifying the measures
of these experiences, we explore how they differ among five countries in Europe (France,
Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal). Examining student experiences should bring more
insight into the cultural impact of mobility in a programme that aims to intensify European
integration.
Research Hypotheses
Based on the literature review, the following two research hypotheses were set:
1. The concepts of campus discrimination, academic support and academic satisfac-

tion can be measured by the chosen variables.
Statistical Analysis of Study Abroad 3
2. Research Question 1: Are the chosen variables statistically appropriate for

measuring campus discrimination of international students?
measuring academic support of international students?
measuring academic satisfaction of international students?
5. International students’ acculturation experiences differ among the five European
countries:
6. Research Question 4: Do international students’ experiences with campus
discrimination differ among countries?”
7. Research Question 5: Do international students’ experiences with academic support
differ among countries?
8. Research Question 6: Do international students’ experiences with academic
satisfaction differ among countries?”
Literature Review
Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis, and Sam (2011) identified international students
as part of the acculturation group of “sojourners,” who “stay in their new society only
temporarily and for a set purpose” (p. 311). In our paper we are limiting this even
further by focusing on short-term international students who go abroad under a “credit
mobility” scheme. This is opposed to students pursuing a full degree abroad under
a “program/diploma mobility” scheme. Since this paper analyzes the study abroad
experiences of international students in Europe, where the most common student
mobility programme is the Erasmus+ programme, in some parts of the paper, we refer
to these students as Erasmus students. “Erasmus students” is a common term used in
literature focused on this subset of international students. Specifics of the Erasmus+
programme as well as its participants are further described below.
Overall, 4.4 million students used the Erasmus programme and the Erasmus+
programme (renamed in 2014) over the 30 years of its existence to study or work abroad,
and it was estimated that another 500,000 young people from Europe would have used it
by 2016. The most popular destinations are Spain, France, Germany, Great Britain, and
Italy. The highest number of outbound students comes from Spain, Germany, France, and
Italy (European Commission, 2017). The OECD (2016) study on global education outlined
the main factors influencing the choice of a study abroad destination: the language
of instruction, the quality of the study program, tuition fees, and immigration policy.
King (2003) highlighted the power that more widely spoken European languages have in
attracting international students, which helps to explain some of the imbalances in the
mobility flows and why countries with a less widely spoken language offer more and more
programs taught in English to attract international students.
The reasons for and against studying abroad have remained relatively unchanged
for a long time, but they differ between short-term credit mobility students and long-
term programme mobility students (King et al., 2010). Students who wish to obtain a full
degree must relocate for a longer period. The destination is, therefore, a more strategic
choice and shaped by the academic and work possibilities. Short-term credit mobility
students may have different personal reasons for choosing a study abroad. They appear
to be more motivated to gain personal experiences while studying or working abroad
than obtaining academic knowledge or gaining future benefits in seeking employment
(King et al., 2010). King et al. mentioned that the topics of “growth and personal
development” or “understanding other cultures, countries, languages” often appear in
studies on international students. A survey of the Erasmus Student Network has shown
that the greatest motivations for the Erasmus students are: “the opportunity to meet new
people,” “the opportunity to learn about other cultures,” or “the possibility of personal
development” (Alfranseder, Fellinger, & Taivere, 2011).
Erasmus students may also differ from student migrants in other parts of the world
due to the specific conditions of the program. They do not pay tuition fees at foreign
universities, and the scholarship should also cover travel and accommodation costs.
According to King et al. (2010), Erasmus students are specific in terms of socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics. King et al. pointed out that mobile students in tertiary
education represent, to a certain extent, a privileged group in terms of wealth, the cultural
capital of parents, and the ability to communicate in foreign languages. When comparing
the sample of Erasmus students and non-Erasmus students, 83% of Erasmus students, as
opposed to 76% of local degree students, came from the three highest professional-paying
classes (King, Findlay, & Ahrens, 2004). Possibly in an attempt to get rid of an image of
a privileged programme for elite students, the Erasmus+ programme introduced the so-
called top-up grants, where students from disadvantaged backgrounds or students with
disabilities can apply for an additional scholarship.
Murphy-Lejeune (2002), in her ethnographic study, compared Erasmus students
with other migrant groups. Erasmus students are younger, which is associated with a
higher level of motivation and greater adaptability. Murphy-Lejeune claimed that Erasmus
students are, out of the other migrant groups, the most prepared to take advantage of
the opportunities that they have. A shorter length of stay allows them to preserve their
culture but partly prevents them from integrating fully into the culture of the country
they are visiting. However, she described the integration of Erasmus students into local
societies as more difficult in large cities, which facilitates mutual avoidance due to the
generally increased anonymity of big cities. In contrast, in smaller towns, Erasmus
students achieved higher levels of integration into local society.
Acculturation models (Berry, 1997; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) account
for the adjustment process of international students similarly as for other acculturating
groups such as immigrants or refugee seekers (Smith & Khawaja, 2011). Despite residing in
the host country usually for a shorter and more defined time period, international students
experience acculturative stress and difficulties with adjusting to the host environment.
Regarding the role that length of stay plays in the adjustment, Zhang and Goodson (2011)
reported it as one of the most frequently reported predictors of international students’
psychosocial adjustment to life in the United States, where generally, the longer the
international students stayed in the host country, the fewer psychological symptoms they
experienced. However, there are many other variables that influence this complex process.
Berry (1997) and Ward et al. (2001) in their acculturation models stressed that the outcome
of acculturation depends on many factors. It may vary depending on coping strategies
or the way individuals appraise life changes. Short-term international students certainly
undergo some degree of culture shock and adaptation in their effort to adapt to a different
educational and social environment, but they often describe it as a lifetime experience
filled with traveling and new adventures (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). Therefore, it isn’t clear
whether a relatively shorter stay could position them as a more vulnerable acculturation
group or not.
Smith and Khawaja (2011) also emphasized the role of the host society in
the acculturation of international students. This is in line with Berry’s definition of
acculturation, which he described as a two-way process where both cultures undergo
change as a result of being in continuous contact (Berry et al., 2011). The attitudes of
local students, professors, and university staff thus play a significant role in the adjustment
process of international students in a different country. Teaching and learning in a
classroom with international students can be challenging for the international and local
students, as well as the professors. Safipour, Wenneberg, and Hadziabdic (2017) reviewed
experiences of all these stakeholders involved. Not surprisingly, language barrier was
found to be the biggest issue that led to experiences such as “feelings of inequality.” The
issue of cultural differences most resonated in “stereotypes and negative experiences.”
Smith and Khawaja (2011) listed discrimination as one of the potential acculturative
stressors that international students encounter. Discrimination—referring to certain
negative behaviors that prevent one group from accessing the privileges that another
group has (Hanassab, 2006)—from the faculty, staff, and students is a topic that has already
been studied in the context of international students’ adjustment (Wei, Wang, Heppner, &
Du, 2012).
Experiences of discrimination can have a negative impact on international
students’ adaptation and have been linked with poor psychological well-being and
depression (Atri, Sharma, & Cottrell, 2007). Moreover, discrimination is said to be a factor
that is significantly and negatively related to students’ perceptions and experiences of a
campus climate (Vaccaro, 2010). Eight items measuring perceived discrimination are a
part of the Acculturative Stress Scale for International Students developed by Sandhu and
Asrabadi (1998), which was used to reveal a negative relationship between acculturative
stress and sociocultural adaptation of international students (Mahmood & Beach, 2018). A
more recent scale, the International Friendly Campus Scale (IFCS) developed by Wang et
al. (2014) assesses discrimination of international students at university campuses. It has
four items on campus discrimination and its association with a number of scales; notably,
“life satisfaction” supported its construct validity. Although many other studies confirm
that students from different countries report different levels of perceived discrimination,
none of these studies have made a comparison of the level of perceived discrimination in
countries that host mainly short-term international students.
On the contrary, the subject of social support is a factor that has a buffering
effect on acculturative stress and helps adaptation (Ward et al., 2001). Social support
of international students can be drawn from different social and friendship networks
(e.g., with co-nationals, other foreigners, or host nationals). Smith and Khawaja
(2011) summarized that support from host nationals tends to have the most positive
effects on international students’ adaptation. For example, Atri et al. (2007) found a
positive association between social support and psychological well-being of international

students. Sullivan and Kashubeck-West (2015) discovered that low level of support by
host nationals is related to a higher level of acculturative stress in international students.
Support by host professors could be a form of direct intervention that is able to mitigate
acculturative stress and enhance the adaptation of international students. The host
environment, which includes the approach and support by local students, professors, and
university staff, might play an equal role in the adjustment of international students as
the international students’ own ability to adapt. In the educational environment, where
genuine interaction between exchange students and members of the host society is not
something that happens automatically (Groeppel-Klein, Germelmann, & Glaum, 2010),
the host professors might be the key local contact persons for international students. In
this sense, support by host professors is a mediator that should improve the acculturative
outcomes. Smith and Khawaja (2011) suggested that the supportive role of the host society,
be it students, professors, or institutions, should be subject to more research with potential
applications.
In Berry’s (1997) acculturative stress and adaptation framework, the ultimate goal is
to achieve adaptation. Ward et al. (2001) distinguished between two types of acculturation
outcomes: psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Psychological adaptation refers
to emotional responses such as feelings of well-being and satisfaction, and sociocultural
adaptation is based on behavioral responses that relate to how an individual can fit into
a new society or effectively manage tasks in a culturally different environment (Ward et
al., 2001). Satisfaction of life abroad, one of the outcomes of acculturation of international
students, is a frequent point of interest in the literature on international students (Sam,
2001). Satisfaction as an outcome might also lead to revisiting a particular country or
recommending it to other students. Jamaludin, Sam, and Sandal (2018) investigated the
issue of destination loyalty, and their results indicated that psychological adaptation of
short-term international students was significant in predicting the intention to revisit and
recommend the destination to people in their home country. The International Student
Barometer, StudyPortals, QS Student Satisfaction, and a number of other assessments
measure the level of student satisfaction. In this paper, the focus is on the educational
environment and the broad subject of satisfaction is limited to factors related to studies.
Wang et al. (2014) developed a scale to measure the campus climate for
international students at universities in the United States. The variables for measuring
academic support and campus discrimination, which are part of their IFCS, were adapted
to the European context and used in the ESNsurvey 2016 (Josek et al., 2016) together
with variables developed to measure academic satisfaction. In the overall results of
the Research Report of the ESNsurvey 2016, 12,365 homecoming international students
reported a low level of perceived discrimination, a high level of support from host
professors, and a high level of academic satisfaction. However, this study did not compare
the results on a country-by-country basis. The aim of this paper is to verify the application
of the measures used in the ESNsurvey 2016 (Josek et al., 2016) and to further explore
the study abroad experiences of short-term international students in different European
countries. By developing three aggregate indexes based on international students’
experiences with campus discrimination (an acculturative stressor), academic support (a
mediator of acculturation), and academic satisfaction (an outcome of acculturation), we

aim to create a ranking of five host destination countries in Europe (France, Germany, Italy,
Spain, and Portugal).
Methods
The data were collected through a European-wide research project called the ESNsurvey
2016, which gathered responses from 12,365 homecoming international students through
an online questionnaire. This online questionnaire was disseminated over a wide network
of student organizations, the Erasmus Student Network, and results have been published
as the Research Report of the ESNsurvey 2016 (Josek et al., 2016).
Our paper analyzes a subset of the ESNsurvey 2016 data set. This subset contains
5,321 cases of respondents from five European countries. It includes 34.5% (n = 1,836
respondents) of mainly Erasmus students, who studied in Spain, 20.3% (n = 1,081 students)
in Germany, 16.4% (n = 870 students) in France, 16.3% (n = 866 students) in Italy, and 12.6%
(n = 668 students) in Portugal. They were 16–32 years old with the average age of 23 years.
The participants were students from all over Europe. Out of 5,321 participants, 64.7% were
studying abroad for one semester (3–6 months) and the rest (35.3%) for two semesters
(6–12 months). There were 74.4% studying at a bachelor or equivalent level, and 25.6% at
a master’s or equivalent level. Respondents mostly came from Italy (24.6%), Spain (15%),
Germany (8.5%), Hungary (5.4%), and Lithuania (4.9%), and studied mostly economy and
business, humanities, and social sciences.
The data collected through the ESNsurvey 2016 project and used in this paper
contain information about the receiving country of short-term international students
and variables on the issues of campus discrimination, academic support, and academic
satisfaction. The variables for measuring campus discrimination and academic support
were adapted from the IFCS. The IFCS was tested on U.S. campuses to assess the
international friendliness of a campus climate. Wang et al. (2014) indicated that
this assessment has solid psychometric properties as an instrument to measure how
environmental factors are associated with the adjustment of international students.
They recommended applying the scale at various academic institutions to obtain a
comprehensive understanding of the overall international friendliness. Two areas of the
full IFCS (international center services and social engagement) were not included in the
ESNsurvey 2016 questionnaire due to the differences in the context between U.S. and
European universities. Some of the differences regarding student services and other
aspects of international student mobilities between U.S. and Spanish higher education
institutions are reviewed by Perez-Encinas and Ammigan (2016). The wording of the
measures used to assess campus discrimination and academic support was partly changed
or generalized to better target the desired respondents. Respondents indicated their
agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert-scale.
The variables selected for measuring the scope of campus discrimination are:
1. I was treated differently or unfairly at my host university because of being an

international student.
2. I feel as though I was treated as less intelligent at my host university because of being
an international student.
3. I heard people at my host university make insensitive or degrading or insulting
remarks about international students.
4. Compared to local students, I didn
The variables selected for measuring the scope of academic support are:
1. Professors were willing to give helpful academic advice to international students.

2. I felt comfortable discussing academic issues with professors there when needed.
3. Professors made a real effort to understand difficulties international students could
have had with their academic work.
The variables selected for measuring the scope of academic satisfaction were developed
for the purpose of the ESNsurvey 2016 project. These variables are:
1. How satisfied were you with the approach and teaching methods (Professors,
Lecturers, etc.) at your host university?
2. What is your overall level of satisfaction with your studies as an exchange student?
First of all, frequencies in the responses for the individual categories were calculated.
Thereafter, a correlation analysis was done. All the variables have to be in a relationship
and have inner consistency to be eligible for creating an aggregate index. Therefore,
Cronbach’s alpha should be higher than .7 (Mareš, Rabušic, & Soukup, 2015), and the
correlations between the index and the related variables should be higher than .3 (De
Vaus, 2002). The next step was to analyze the dataset by a principal component analysis
(PCA), an analytical tool used in exploratory analysis before the creation of an aggregate
index. The PCA is a tool that controls whether the variables considered for creation of the
aggregate index are extracted into one component (Mareš et al., 2015).
Based on the Kaiser rule, only the variables whose eigenvalues were higher than 1
and the variables above the curvature of the line on the Scree plot were chosen (Mareš et
al., 2015).
The five studied countries are ranked based on indices in the three selected scopes
(components). An index ranking of 1 indicates the best results and an index ranking of
5 indicates the worst results in a given category. Two methods have been chosen for
calculation of the indexes—point method and standard variable method—in order to take
into account both the possible directions of each variable. In the first method (point
method), the optimum of the index is 1,000, so the closer the calculated index value is
to 1,000, the better is the ranking. In the second method (standard variable method) the
optimum of the index is zero, so the closer the calculated value of the index is to zero,
the better is the ranking. Both methods count with the relative frequencies of particular
respondents (e.g., number of satisfied students). All calculations have been done using
the IBM SPSS Statistics 24 software.
Reliability Analysis
For the variables related to the topic of campus discrimination, a= .806; for the variables
related to academic support, a = .815, and for the variables related to academic satisfaction,
a= .821. In addition, all the paired correlation coefficients in the inter-item correlation
matrices have been found to be higher than 0.3. These results confirm suitability of the
variables to calculate the PCA, since we met the assumptions of this method.
Principal Component Analysis

The results of the PCA suggested two to four new components. Based on the Scree plot,
eigenvalue (Figure 1), and the potential interpretations, the decision was to create three
new components. The value .793 of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure is considered
to be suitable and therefore, the KMO test proved that the set of variables is applicable for
the PCA. In addition, the Bartlett test shows a statistically significant result (c2 = 16,816.133;
df = 36; p = 0.000). The three new variables (components) are able to explain 71.34% of
the variance of the original variables.
Figure 1. Scree plot of principal component analysis.

The component matrix below depicts the correlation coefficients between the
newly created components and their variables. The component called campus
discrimination has:
1. a strong positive relationship with the variable, “I feel as though I was treated as less
intelligent one at my host university because of being an international student.” (r =
.815**);
2. a strong positive relationship with the variable, “I was treated differently or unfairly
at my host university because of being an international student.” (r = .812**);
3. a medium-strong positive relationship with the variable “I heard people at my host
university to make insensitive or degrading or insulting remarks about international
students.” (r = .793**);
4. a medium-strong positive relationship with the variable “
This new component explains 28.17% of the variability of the original variables. The two
asterisks next to the correlation (**) coefficient indicate that the correlation is significant
at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Similarly, the component called academic support has:
1. a strong positive relationship with the variable, “Professors made a real effort to
understand difficulties international students could have had with their academic
work.” (r = .834**);
2. a strong positive relationship with the variable, “Professors were willing to give
helpful academic advice to international students.” (r = .832**);
3. a strong positive relationship with the variable, “I felt comfortable discussing
academic issues with professors there when needed.” (r = .814**).
This new component explains 24.47% of the variability of the original variables.
Even stronger positive relationships have been found between the component
named academic satisfaction and its two variables:
1. What is your overall level of satisfaction with your studies as an exchange student? (r
= .902**);
2. How satisfied were you with the approach and teaching methods (professors,
lecturers, etc.) at your host university? (r = .895**).
This third component explains 18.70% of the variability of the original variables.
The results of PCA suggest that each of these three newly created components
form a separate dimension in the context of student acculturation experiences. Therefore,
the variables used in the questionnaire are relevant for measuring the acculturation
experiences of international students in all the three categories (answer to Research
Question 2). Based on this finding, in the following calculations we will use the three
components of campus discrimination, academic support and academic satisfaction in
creation of the aggregate indexes.
Table 1. Component matrix of principal component analysis.
Component
Campus Academic Academic
discrimination support satisfaction
I feel as though I was treated as less .815

intelligent one at my host university
because of being an international
student.
I was treated differently or unfairly at .812
my host university because of being
an international student.
I heard people at my host univer- .793
sity to make insensitive or degrading
or insulting remarks about interna-
tional students.
Compared to local students, I didn’t .685
have equal access to resources and
opportunities at my host university.
Professors made a real effort to .834
understand difficulties international
students could have had with their
academic work.
Professors were willing to give help- .832
ful academic advice to international
students.
I felt comfortable discussing aca- .814
demic issues with professors there
when needed.
What is your overall level of satisfac- .902
tion with your studies as an exchange
student?
How satisfied were you with the .895
approach and teaching methods
(professors, lecturers, etc.) at your
host university?
Campus Discrimination
In terms of campus discrimination, an overwhelming majority of respondents, on average
around 80%, disagreed that they felt discriminated at their host institution, 11% neither
agreed nor disagreed, and around 9% agreed they felt discriminated against. We will now
look into the 9% of students who agreed that they felt discriminated against and we will
describe the results on the individual variables with respect to the studied countries.
Of the Erasmus students, 11.6% agreed that compared with local students, they
didn’t have equal access to resources and opportunities. The results differ across
countries—14.2% of students studying in Portugal reported unequal access, whereas only
7.6% of students in Germany agreed to have felt discriminated in such a way. An average
of 9.6% of Erasmus students felt they had been treated differently or unfairly because
of being an international student. Again, the lowest percentage of students agreeing
with this feeling was in Germany (5.7%), the highest was in Italy (12%). An average of
9.7% of Erasmus students felt they were treated as less intelligent because of being an
international student. This feeling was the strongest in France (12.4%) and weakest in
Portugal (7.7%). Finally, 6.3% of Erasmus students heard people at host university make
insensitive, degrading, or insulting remarks about international students. This variable
had the lowest percentage of students agreeing with it, with 5.3% in Germany, but 7.5% in
France.
Table 2 below ranks the studied countries on the aggregate index of campus
discrimination. The index is based on the minimal number of discriminated students (the
frequency of those who agreed that they felt discriminated). Ranking 1 indicates countries
with the lowest amount of perceived campus discrimination. In this sense, Germany (1)
had the lowest representation of those students who agreed to feel discriminated, followed
by Spain (2), Portugal (3), and Italy (4), with France (5) having the relatively highest number
of discriminated students.
Table 2. Campus discrimination index for five major ISM destination countries for Research
Question 4.
Index of regional Rank (point Index of Rank (standard

disparity method) regional variable
disparity method)
France 596.2222 5 1.8350 5
Germany 965.5449 1 0.1211 1
Italy 659.0249 4 1.4515 4
Portugal 739.1603 3 1.1957 3
Spain 741.9215 2 1.0155 2
Academic Support
Regarding academic support, again a clear majority—on average almost 70%—of
respondents agreed that professors supported them; around 14% of respondents neither
agreed nor disagreed; and the remaining 16% disagreed. We will now explore the 16%
of students who disagreed with the statements related to professors’ support and we will
describe the results on the individual variables with respect to the studied countries.
An average of 19.2% of Erasmus students disagreed that professors made a real
effort to understand difficulties international students could have had with their academic
work. The percentages differ among the countries; for example, in Italy, 21.9% of Erasmus
students disagreed with this statement and in Germany, only 14.1%.
Regarding the next variables, 15.3% of Erasmus students disagreed that professors
were willing to give helpful academic advice to international students. Again, students
in Germany indicated the lowest percentage (10.7%), but students studying in Italy the
highest (18.7%). An average of 13.6% of students disagreed that they felt comfortable
discussing academic issues with professors there when needed. This time, the lowest
percentage of students disagreeing with this statement was found to be in Portugal
(11.2%), closely followed by Germany, and the highest again in Italy (17%).
Table 3 ranks the studied countries on the aggregate index of disagreement with
academic support. The index is based on the minimal number of unsupported students
(the frequency of those who disagreed that professors supported them). Therefore, we
call it the aggregate index of disagreement with academic support. Ranking 1 indicates
countries with the lowest reported amount of unsupported students. In this sense,
Germany (1) had the lowest representation of those students who disagreed that professors
supported them, followed by Portugal (2), Spain (3), and France (4), with Italy (5) having
the relatively highest number of unsupported students
Table 3. Disagreement with academic support index for five major ISM destination countries for
Research Question 5.
Index of Rank (point Index of Rank (standard

regional method) regional variable
disparity disparity method)
France 667.4499 4 1.7795 4
Germany 990.1827 1 0.0467 1
Italy 624.1161 5 2.1726 5
Portugal 964.6733 2 0.1181 2
Spain 705.8850 3 1.4892 3
Academic Satisfaction
Once again, a clear majority of students, on average almost 62%, were overall academically
satisfied; around 16% were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; and the remaining 22% of
respondents were academically dissatisfied.
We will now explore the 62% of students who were on average satisfied with their
studies abroad and with the approach and teaching methods. We will describe the results
on the individual variables with respect to the studied countries.
An average of 65.4% of Erasmus students indicated being satisfied with their studies
as an exchange student. The most satisfied students were in Germany (73.2%) and the
least amount of satisfied students was in Spain (62.7%). Regarding the next variable, 58.2%
of Erasmus students were satisfied with the approach and teaching methods (professors,
lecturers, etc.) at their host university. Again, the highest number of satisfied students was
in Germany (68.4%) and the lowest in Italy (54.3%).
Table 4 below ranks the studied countries on the aggregate index of academic
satisfaction. The index is based on the maximal number of satisfied students (the
frequency of those who indicated being satisfied). Ranking 1 indicates countries with the
highest reported amount of satisfied students. Germany (1) had the highest representation
of satisfied students, followed by Portugal (2), France (3), and Spain (4), with Italy (5) having
the relatively lowest number of satisfied students.
Table 4. Academic satisfaction index for five major ISM destination countries for Research Question
6.
Index of Rank (point Index of Rank (standard

regional method) regional variable
disparity disparity method)
France 843.3165 3 1.8991 3
Germany 1,000.000 1 0.0000 1
Italy 826.4656 5 2.1067 5
Portugal 859.2759 2 1.7079 2
Spain 837.1215 4 1.9816 4
Correlation Coefficients Between Aggregated Indexes

According to Spearman’s correlation coefficient, a negative relationship has been found
between the aggregate index of campus discrimination and the aggregate index of
academic satisfaction. The correlation coefficient r = °.230**. According to Spearman’s
correlation coefficient, no relationship has been found between the disagreement with
academic support index and the academic satisfaction index.
Discussion and Conclusions

Stress and social support were identified by Zhang and Goodson (2011) as the top two
most frequently reported predictors of psychological symptoms related to the adjustment
of international students in the United States. Although this paper looks into the
experiences of international students in Europe, Zhang and Goodson’s review can at
least help to position the components of this study in context. The component campus
discrimination, which accumulates four variables describing the various feelings of
discrimination international students can have at their host institution, is a form of stress
operationalized in the reviewed studies as perceived discrimination. Similarly, academic
support, combining the three variables describing the ways in which students can feel
supported by host professors, is closely related to social support operationalized as social
support from an interpersonal network, graduate program, or the campus international
student office.
Three aggregate indexes were developed from the three newly created components
in order to rank the five major host countries on the basis of international students’
experiences. Since both methods of calculating the indexes came to similar rankings, these
can be placed next to each other (see Table 5). Regarding the measured variables in this
paper, it is quite clear that the study abroad experiences of international students resulted
most favorable for Germany and least favorable for Italy.
Table 5. Ranking comparison of five host countries on acculturation experiences.
Campus Academic Academic

discrimination support satisfaction
France 5 4 3
Germany 1 1 1
Italy 4 5 5
Portugal 3 2 2
Spain 2 3 4
According to the correlation analyses, the expected negative relationship between

campus discrimination and academic satisfaction was confirmed. Although this finding
is not a genuine surprise as it is in line with a general theory of human interaction, we
can state that, when a greater number of international students feel discriminated in
the educational environment of a particular country, a smaller number of international
students are academically satisfied in that particular country.
Overall, the results of the survey on international students’ experiences are positive.
Students on average don’t feel discriminated against, do feel the support from host
professors, and are satisfied with their studies. Fostering such a tolerant educational
environment should lead to higher levels of satisfaction of these international students
and generally to more favorable study abroad experiences.
This paper proposed a way to compare five major host countries of the Erasmus
programme based on the areas related to acculturation experiences of international
students. The proposed aggregate indexes of campus discrimination, disagreement with
academic support and academic satisfaction allow to state a basic benchmark of these five
countries.
The results of this paper should be viewed as a first exploration of the data from the
ESNsurvey project that are related to the field of student acculturation experiences. The
findings will be used for a deeper analysis, such as the creation of clusters of international
students. Conducting a cluster analysis of a wider dataset of homecoming Erasmus
students from a larger number of host countries would allow finding homogeneous groups
of international students who could be described in more detail (e.g., specified by age,
the country of sending institution, socioeconomic background etc.). Additionally, more
components, such as the length of study abroad, language of instruction, and social
contact with locals, can be added to describe the context in which international students
adjust. Increasing the knowledge and understanding of the students’ characteristics and
the context in which acculturation takes place would allow for wider benchmarking, more
tailored recommendations, and opportunities for sharing best practices. These could be
proposed to policy makers in the field of education and student mobility, as well as to
specific countries and higher education institutions.
References
Alfranseder, E., Fellinger, J., & Taivere, M. (2011). E-value-ate your exchange: Research
report of the ESN survey 2010. Erasmus Student Network, Brussels, Belgium.
Altbach, P. G. & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.
Atri, A., Sharma, M., & Cottrell, R. (2007). Role of social support, hardiness, and
acculturation as predictors of mental health among international students of Asian
Indian origin. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 27(1), 59–73.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1),
5–34.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011).
Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Brooks, R. & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization
of higher education. Palgrave MacMillan, London.
Commission, E. (2014). ERASMUS facts, figures, trends. The European Union Support for
Student and Staff Exchanges and University Cooperation in 2012–2013. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Commission, E. (2017). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Commission, European, Brussels,
Belgium.
Commission, E. (2018). A modern budget for a Union that protects, empowers and
defends: Questions and answers.
Groeppel-Klein, A., Germelmann, C. C., & Glaum, M. (2010). Intercultural interaction
needs more than mere exposure: Searching for drivers of student interaction at border
universities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 253–267.
Gürüz, K. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global
knowledge economy: Revised and updated second edition. SUNY Press, New York.
Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimination:
Implications for educators and counselors. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(2), 157–172.
Jamaludin, N. L., Sam, D. L., & Sandal, G. M. (2018). Destination motivation, cultural
orientation, and adaptation: International students’ destination-loyalty intention.
Journal of International Students, 8(1), 38–65.
Josek, M., Fernandez, J. A., Perez-Encinas, A., Zimonjic, B., Vocht, L., & Falisse, M. (2016).
The international-friendliness of universities: Research report of the ESNsurvey 2016.
Erasmus Student Network AISBL, Brussels, Belgium.
King, R. (2003). International student migration in Europe and the institutionalisation of
identity as" Young Europeans". In Doomernik, J. & Knippenberg, H., editors, Migration
and immigrants: Between policy and reality. Essays in honour of Hans Van Amersfoort,
pages 155–179, Amsterdam. The.
King, R., Findlay, A., & Ahrens, J. (2010). International student mobility literature review.
King, R., Ruiz-Gelices, E., & Findlay, A. M. (2004). International student mobility: Final
report. Sussex, London.
Mahmood, H. & Beach, D. (2018). Analysis of acculturative stress and sociocultural
adaptation among international students at a non-metropolitan university. Journal of
International Students, 8(1), 284–307.
Mareš, P., Rabušic, L., & Soukup, P. (2015). Analýza sociálně vědních dat (nejen) v SPSS.
Masaryk University, Brno.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe: The new strangers.
Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
of the European Union, C. (2011). In Council conclusions on the modernisation of
higher education. 3128th Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council Meeting, Brussels,
Belgium.
Perez-Encinas, A. & Ammigan, R. (2016). Support services at Spanish and US institutions:
A driver for international student satisfaction. Journal of International Students, 6(4),
984–998.
Perez-Encinas, A., Rodriguez-Pomeda, J., & Josek, M. (2017). Problematic areas of host
university support services for short-term mobility students. Journal of International
Students, 7(4), 1030–1047.
Safipour, J., Wenneberg, S., & Hadziabdic, E. (2017). Experience of education in the
international classroom: A systematic literature review. Journal of International
Students, 7(3), 806–824.
Sam, D. L. (2001). Satisfaction with life among international students: An exploratory
study. Social Indicators Research, 53, 315–337.
Sandhu, D. S. & Asrabadi, B. R. (1998). An acculturative stress scale for international
students: A practical approach to stress management. (Vol, 2, 1–33.
Smith, R. A. & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 699–713.
Sullivan, C. & Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). The interplay of international students’
acculturative stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of International
Students, 5(1), 1–11.
Tsoukalas, I. (2008). The double life of Erasmus students. In Byram, M. & Dervin, F., editors,
Students, staff and academic mobility in higher education, pages 131–152, Newcastle.
Cambridge Scholars.
Vaccaro, A. (2010). What lies beneath seemingly positive campus climate results:
Institutional sexism, racism, and male hostility toward equity initiatives and liberal bias.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(2), 202–215.
Vaus, D. A. D. (2002). Analyzing social science data: Fifty key problems in data analysis.
Sage, London.
Wang, K. T., Li, F., Wang, Y., Hunt, E. N., Yan, G. C., & Currey, D. E. (2014). The International
Friendly Campus Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 42, 118–128.
Ward, C. A., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. East Sussex:
Routledge, Hove.
Wei, M., Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., & Du, Y. (2012). Ethnic and mainstream social
connectedness, perceived racial discrimination, and posttraumatic stress symptoms.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 486–493.
Zhang, J. & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial
adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 139–162.
Author biography
Josek Mikuláš is a PhD candidate of the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Economics
and Management at the Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague (Czech Republic). He
was a volunteer of the Erasmus Student Network AISBL as a Research Coordinator of the
ESNsurvey 2016 project. His major research interests lie in the area of internationalization
of higher education
Svobodová Jitka is a PhD candidate of the Department of Statistics, Faculty of Economics

and Management at the Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague (Czech Republic). Her
major research interests lie in the area of statistics in medicine, biochemistry, genetics and
molecular biology, endocrinology, regional disparities and agricultural economics.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 19–38
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.270
ojed.org/jis
“We are a ghost in the class”: First Year

International Students’ Experiences in
the Global Contact Zone
Keri Freemana and Minglin Lib
Abstract: This article draws on data collected during case studies involving six undergraduate
international students. It uses the academic literacies framework to examine how international
students (re)negotiate their student identities. Based on the concept that Australian university
classrooms are global educational contact zones, the study reinforces the urgent need to shift
from existing narratives that focus on international students’ perceived language and literacy
deficits. Participants demonstrated positive student identities by successfully mediating disciplinary
requirements. However, their transition was hindered due to insufficient opportunities for
meaningful classroom interactions and lack of academic instruction and feedback. The findings
suggest teachers are in the best position to address this gap through classroom pedagogies that
accommodate learners from diverse backgrounds and facilitate inclusive learning environments. r
Keywords: academic literacies, deficit view, international students, classroom practices,

student identity
Introduction
Based on the concept of a global educational contact zone, this study examined how
first-year undergraduate international students (re)negotiated their student identities. By
global educational contact zone, we refer to an Australian university where “teachers and
students with disparate cultural backgrounds and identities meet and interact” (Scotland,
2014, p. 36). Clifford (1997) defined the term contact zone as spaces where “the making
and remaking of identities, takes place” (p. 7). Educational contact zone is an appropriate
description for Australia’s current tertiary education, whereby global student mobility
has transformed universities into multicultural learning environments. In 2016, around
24% of Australia’s university cohorts were international students (Australian Government
Department of Education and Training, 2016). The worldwide demand for international
a Keri Freeman. Griffith University, Email: k.freeman@griffith.edu.au

b Minglin Li. Griffith University, Email: minglin.li@griffith.edu.au
20 Freeman and Li
education is expected to continue rising, and by 2020, international enrollments in

Australia are predicted to be 30% higher than current figures (Chaney, 2013).
Australia’s tertiary sector currently has a favourable reputation, but also faces
global competition from other native English-speaking (NES) countries and emerging
competition in Asia, increasing the importance of meeting international students’
expectations and learning needs (Chaney, 2013; Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, 2013; Productivity Commission, 2015). In 2007 and
2013, two Australian symposiums involving key stakeholders examined the knowledge
gaps surrounding tertiary international education (Australian Education International,
2007). One major outcome was the Good Practice Principles for English Language
Proficiency for International Students in Australian Universities (hereafter called the Good
Practice Principles). The principles recommend institutions ensure effective and regular
opportunities for academic interaction and cross-cultural discussion within disciplinary
learning settings, and integrate discipline-specific language enhancement and academic
skills socialization into curricula (Australian Universities Quality Agency, 2009). As
educators working with international students at tertiary level, we have seen examples
of successful implementation of the Good Practice Principles. However, challenges have
been reported by international students, particularly with regard to their academic literacy
practices in a new academic community.
Since these symposiums, researchers have continued to examine whether changes
to higher education policies and internationalization strategies are effectively catering to
students from diverse backgrounds. Subsequent studies (e.g., Elliot, Reid, & Baumfield,
2016; Gale, Mills, & Cross, 2017; Leask, 2013; Wingate, 2015) have suggested universities
have yet to adequately respond and persist with a deficit approach toward international
students. The deficit approach assumes non-native English speaking (NNES) students’
language proficiency and previous educational experiences do not align with the
disciplinary requirements and literacy practices in English-speaking universities, and thus,
are barriers limiting their capacity to adapt to new academic learning environments. This
assumption makes it difficult for NNES students to feel accepted by their new academic
community if their student identity is challenged based on linguistic and cultural
stereotypes (Gee, 2004; Gorski, 2010; Pham & Saltmarsh, 2013; Safipour, Wenneberg, &
Hadziabdic, 2017).
One way to investigate issues surrounding international students’ literacy and
learning is through the academic literacies approach. This approach was developed
by Lea and Street (1998) to guide researchers in their efforts to inform and enhance
tertiary policies and strategies. It is founded on the understanding that literacy and
learning are social and cultural practices highly influenced by the way students see
themselves culturally, linguistically, and academically, as well as how they perceive that
others’ view them. The approach has been advocated as a suitable framework to explore
how international students mediate tertiary global learning environments (e.g., Harper,
Prentice, & Wilson, 2011; Hyland, 2013; Leask, 2013; Wingate, 2015) because it emphasizes
the significant effect institutional and disciplinary pedagogies and practices have on
students’ experiences and identities.
We are a ghost in the class 21
Literature Review
Universities are unique discourse communities in which disciplinary traditions, conven-
tions, and values are often implicit. This poses challenges to first-year students in terms of
understanding course expectations and requirements. In addition, the inextricable links
between literacy, learning, language, and culture add extra layers of complexity for NNES
students not part of the dominant linguistic and cultural group. Nevertheless, global edu-
cational contact zones bring valuable opportunities for all students to develop cultural
understanding and intercultural communication skills in preparation for future employ-
ment in culturally diverse work settings (Chaney, 2013; Productivity Commission, 2015;
Wingate, 2015). The aim of this study is to determine factors that help or hinder first-
year international students’ academic socialization and identity construction to provide
insights into effective pedagogies and classroom practices that address the Good Prac-
tice Principles, support student learning, and enhance intercultural communication and
understanding.
The Academic Literacies Approach

To account for the complex nature of tertiary literacy and learning, the academic literacies
framework encompasses three overlapping models: study skills, academic socialization,
and academic literacies. Study skills refers to the deficit view of literacy, which assumes
knowledge is transferred, not constructed, and is regarded by researchers such as Lea and
Street (1998) and Wingate (2015) as the starting point of academic literacy. Academic
socialization extends on study skills by acknowledging students apply skills they already
possess to develop new literacy practices relevant to specific disciplines. The third
model, academic literacies, moves beyond the concept of socialization with the view
that successful engagement in a new academic community requires students to learn
“new ways of understanding, interpreting and organising knowledge” through meaningful
engagement with teachers and peers (Lea & Street, 1998, p. 158). The underpinning
belief of the academic literacies approach is that while the study skills and socialization
perspectives provide some insight into the nature of learning, they are insufficient to fully
understand the epistemological demands of tertiary study. However, researchers (e.g.,
Gale et al., 2017; Harper et al., 2011; Leask & Bridge, 2013; Street, 2013; Wingate, 2015) have
argued that study skills remain the underlying approach guiding tertiary curricula and
instructional practices and, consequently, have called for urgent changes to disciplinary
pedagogies and increased teacher training as essential strategies to better accommodate
first-year students’ learning needs. The academic literacies approach is a valuable research
framework to examine university classroom practices because it considers students’
voices, and the inherent link between language, literacy, and learning.
Student Identity
A key concept in the academic literacies framework is its emphasis on the central role
identity plays when students transition into new learning environments. Positive identity
construction is influenced by students’ academic experiences, relationships with teachers
and peers, and how well they understand and engage in the literacy practices recognized
22 Freeman and Li
and valued by their new academic community (Gee, 2004; Gu, Patkin, & Kirkpatrick,
2014; Marginson, 2013; Scotland, 2014). According to Gee (2004), identity construction
is facilitated through “meaningful and value-laden action, interaction and dialogue” (p.
48). Lizzio (2011) described identity negotiation as invisible classroom transactions
and advised that teaching pedagogies that enrich student identities are fundamental in
curricula design. Scotland (2014) suggested that renegotiating existing identities requires
agency and adaptability, to resolve potential disruptions that can occur due to unfamiliar
pedagogies and discourses in global learning environments.
The student voice can provide insights into how students construct new identities
in global contexts where assumptions from others regarding their skills and knowledge
may have already been culturally determined. In a study by Gargano (2012),
undergraduate international students in the United States reported a fragmented and
ambiguous learning environment due to inaccurate stereotypes about their learning styles
based on nationality. Despite these challenges, the participants viewed interactions with
peers as advantageous in learning how to negotiate transnational spaces as global citizens.
Similarly, Pham and Saltmarsh (2013) found that although undergraduate international
students studying in Australia believed that their new academic community perceived
them as “others,” they demonstrated student agency and used the skills and knowledge
they already possessed to successfully mediate courses and achieve their academic goals.
Marginson (2013) also observed that globally, mobile students actively developed multiple
identities and considered both positive and negative experiences as opportunities for
personal growth. These findings emphasize the need for universities to increase their
understanding of international students’ capabilities and self-determination, rather than
assuming their cultural identities are barriers to learning.
Identity is also influenced by whether students feel a sense of belonging within their
academic community. Inclusive classroom practices and teachers expressing interest and
concern have been found to significantly influence students’ feelings of belonging (Baik,
Naylor, & Arkoudis, 2015; Glass, Kociolek, Wongtrirat, Lynch, & Cong, 2015; Slaten, Elison,
Lee, Yough, & Scalise, 2016). A sense of belonging can increase students’ participation and
capacity to become independent learners and improve academic achievement, whereas
lack of constructive feedback and perceived cultural insensitivity can have long-lasting
discouraging effects (Baik et al., 2015; Glass et al., 2015; Slaten et al., 2016; Yefanova,
Montgomery, Woodruff, Johnstone, & Kappler, 2017). Elliot et al. (2016) compared the
idea of belonging to nurturing a relocated plant into new soil. If the plant is to not only
live, but also flourish, it requires initial care to adapt and grow.
However, a longitudinal Australian study conducted between 1994 and 2014
revealed that, compared with domestic students, international students were less likely
to experience a sense of belonging (Baik et al., 2015). These results highlight Doherty
and Singh’s (2007) contention that academic staff need to acquire “a more nuanced
understanding of who internationally mobile students are” (p. 18). More recently, Wingate
(2015) argued that achieving inclusive classrooms has been difficult because teachers have
“insufficient knowledge of students’ previous experiences, backgrounds and values” (p.
110), and perceive student identities based on nationality. This suggests it is essential
that universities increase staff training and support so teachers can implement classroom
practices appropriate for global tertiary contexts.
Althoughrecent studies have contributed to current empirical knowledge regarding
the important role positive identities and belonging play when students transition
into global learning environments, there is still a paucity of research examining the
experiences of undergraduate international students from diverse fields of study and
cultural backgrounds (Gargano, 2012; Gu et al., 2014; Slaten et al., 2016). Wingate (2015)
reported that most student identity research focuses on postgraduate and Asian cohorts,
which has led to gaps in current understandings of first-year student experiences.
First-Year Transition Strategies

All first-year students can benefit from institutional and teacher support and inclusive
classroom practices as they work towards becoming valued members of their academic
community (Australian Education International, 2013; Harper et al., 2011; Hocking &
Fieldhouse, 2011; Tobell & Burton, 2015; Wingate, 2015). Wilson et al. (2016) described
the first year of university as “one of the most significant transitions in a student’s life”
(p. 1024), and found international and domestic students prioritized forming connections
with teachers and peers, understanding assessments, and locating learning resources
in their first semester. This suggests that 1 week of orientation and the provision of
literacy and learning support outside the disciplines cannot adequately cater for first-
year students’ needs (Leask & Carroll, 2011; Tobell & Burton, 2015; Wingate, 2015; Yan
& Sendall, 2016). Accordingly, researchers recommend first-year transition strategies be
embedded into course curricula to facilitate inclusion and engagement—for example,
structured opportunities for cross-cultural interactions, literacy and language instruction
and modeling, and teacher feedback (e.g., Glass et al., 2015; Leask & Bridge, 2013; Wingate,
2015). However, previous studies argue that few institutions apply these strategies across
the disciplines, which has increased the demand for investigations into higher education
learning environments in an effort to promote change (Leask & Bridge, 2013; Safipour et
al., 2017; Street, 2013; Tobell & Burton, 2015; Wingate, 2015).
The university where this study was undertaken has responded to its diverse
student cohorts with internationalization strategies that endeavor to support international
students’ integration into the university community. A strategy to address the Good
Practice Principles has been the introduction of Australia’s first compulsory, university-
wide foundational program to assist international undergraduate students’ transition into
their disciplines. The program involves language and communication courses taught by
English language instructors who aim to develop students’ communicative competence
and understanding of disciplinary literacy practices and conventions (Fenton-Smith,
Humphreys, Walkinshaw, & Lobo, 2015). Dunworth (2013) described the program as
an effective approach to position language and academic literacies development as
core teaching and learning activities. The university also provides internationalization
strategies and resources for academic staff that recommend curricula and classroom
practices to address language barriers in the classroom, and to promote engagement
among staff and students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. According to
24 Freeman and Li
Leask (2013), research that examines the efficacy of tertiary internationalization strategies
has been scarce. This study contributes to addressing this research gap.
Research Method
The research setting was an Australian university located in South East Queensland and
data were collected over two semesters at one of the university’s campuses. Around
20% of the current student population across the university are international enrolments.
A multiple embedded case study design was chosen as an appropriate method to gain
in-depth insights into international students’ perceptions and academic experiences.
The rationale for using multiple case studies was to include students from a range of
backgrounds, where each participant represented one unit of analysis embedded within
the research setting. In addition, Yin (2009) advised that involving more than just one or
two cases in a study can increase the reliability of the research findings. Ethics approval
was obtained from the university Research Ethics Committee where the research took
place. Participants provided informed consent and were given pseudonyms.
Participants
Participants were undergraduate international students in their first year of university in
Australia. Purposive sampling was used to select participants from a variety of cultural and
educational backgrounds and disciplines (see Table 1). Yin (2009) referred to purposive
sampling as screening, and describes it as an essential step to yield data relevant to the
research aims.
Table 1. Six case study participants.
Pseudonym Nationality Gender Age Degree

Trang Vietnamese Male 22 Bachelor of Business
Gabriella Thai-Japanese Female 20 Bachelor of Hotel Management
Jaili Chinese Female 21 Bachelor of Civil Engineering
Filipe Brazilian Male 21 Bachelor of Science
Camilla Brazilian Female 22 Bachelor of Pharmacy
Meko Japanese Female 21 Bachelor of Environmental Science
Trang and Gabriella were in Australia for their entire degrees, and Filipe, Camilla,
and Meko were one-year study abroad students. Jaili was participating in a university
partnership program that provided the opportunity to complete 2 years of her degree in
Australia. Meko and Trang had enrolled directly into the university based on their language
test results, the International English Language Testing System for Trang, and the Test of
English as a Foreign Language for Meko. Filipe, Camilla, and Jaili’s enrolment pathway was
a 10-week direct-entry English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students (ELICOS)
offered by the university’s language institute. Gabriella enrolled after completing two
semesters of a Diploma of Hotel Management at the university’s pathway college.
Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected using structured and semi-structured interviews. Following Yin’s
(2009) recommendations for case study research, strict research protocols were used to
ensure data collection and analysis; each case adhered to the same set of systematic
procedures so that the research could yield valid and reliable evidence. Each student
participated in eight to ten 20-minute weekly structured interviews during their first
semester, which provided detailed insights into participants’ literacy practices and
learning experiences as they were occurring. The interview schedule contained nine open-
ended questions repeated each week to collect systematic field notes. The longer, semi-
structured interviews extended the scope of the study, with each student participating
in five 30-minute, audiorecorded, one-on-one interviews over two semesters. The semi-
structured format allowed flexibility and time to probe for further details regarding
participants’ classroom experiences and relationships with teachers and peers.
Case study data were uploaded into NVivo 11 software and analysed using a
thematic approach (Creswell, 2012; Yin, 2009). As suggested by Yin (2009), each case
was analysed individually, and the results compared across the cases to provide a broader
picture of the research issues. Data analysis involved an iterative process with the
researchers reading and rereading the interview data to establish emerging themes and to
gain a detailed picture of participants’ educational contexts and experiences. The themes
were coded and further analyzed to identify patterns within each case, and across the six
cases. To minimize researcher bias, it was essential not to make assumptions as to what the
data might reveal (Duff, 2014; Yin, 2012). To maintain researcher objectivity, the process
of reflexivity advocated by Yin (2011) was used during the analysis and interpretation to
ensure personal values did not influence the research findings, and no judgments were
expressed by the researchers about any of the participants’ views or actions. In addition, a
strict interview transcription protocol was followed, and the researchers double-checked
all verbatim quotes with the audio data for accuracy.
Results
Understanding Disciplinary Literacy Practices
In the first weeks of Semester 1, participants acknowledged they needed to use new
approaches to learning. They discussed the differences between studying in Australia
compared to their home countries and described taking between 10 and 15 courses each
semester at home, and attending classes for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Although their
Australian university required just four courses each semester, they were under no illusion
that less class time would mean less work. Camilla observed: “I don’t think it is free time
because in Brazil, I don’t have to write a lot of assignments.” Meko identified distinctions
she noticed in the first few weeks of semester:
[In Japan] just go to class, get what the lecturer said and just prepare for
exams. So it’s easier, more passive than here. Because we take so many
courses, the examination [in Japan] is really easier to pass.And written
26 Freeman and Li
assignment [in Japan] is much easier than here because. . . here we, they
really check [for plagiarism] strictly, but in Japan not as much.
The four students who completed the ELICOS and college pathway programs expressed
complete confidence they had acquired the literacy practices they needed during their
pathway courses. At the start of the semester Jaili reported:
It’s not difficult for me here because I was studying in the [university’s]
language institute.I didn’t need to write references in China. Just write
what you want to say.I think it’s good here because you can make the
reader to know where those sources come from and well, it’s good to have
evidence to support my opinion.
Gabriella was also satisfied she understood disciplinary expectations, especially when she
appeared to know more than some domestic students at the start of the semester:
At first [when I arrived in Australia] I had no idea how to write the

academic stuff. I learnt it there [the Vocational Education and Training
course]. They teach me really good. So when I came here [the university]
it is ok, the academic writing. I think is much better than the first
year local students. I know how to reference and I know how to write.
There are many local students, they have to ask the teacher about it
[referencing] many times. They even just lack the basics.”
Trang and Meko were initially concerned about their disciplinary skills and responded by
spending time at the start of semester attending library workshops and using self-help
resources related to academic writing, time management, and writing using sources. Their
confidence increased when they became familiar with disciplinary expectations as the
semester progressed. Trang noted:
Much more academic here. I think it’s really necessary for those rules
[academic integrity]. In Vietnam you know, most students literally copy
and paste and it’s like really bad. I prefer here, it’s more fair and reflect
your real potential.
By the end of Semester 1, Meko believed she was in a better position to write her master’s
dissertation in English when she returned to Japan:
I should think more if I write something.That’s the importance of

reading. I have learnt how to organize and write the good waywith a nice
structure and consistency in the whole message.
Participants not only understood Australian academic culture, they also seemed to prefer
it. Jaili reflected:
My writing skills have been improved because I read a lot of books. You
read a lot it becomes easier to write. When I study in China, I don’t
read anything. I just write what I want to explain. No any theory to

support or evidence to support. It’s very boring. It’s kind of like I make
it up.And, while I’m reading I am learning more knowledge. It’s good to
have evidence to support my opinion.
Camilla and Filipe believed their new literacy practices would be advantageous when they
returned home. Filipe described how he had changed his approach to academic writing:
I think it’s very useful to see how to organize my ideas because I didn’t do
it in Brazil, I just started writing things. But now I need to focus on the
structure and follow my ideas to make it better to read, to see if I had all
the information linked with my references and my own opinion.
International students’ understanding of disciplinary conventions and requirements is a

factor that may affect academic socialization and academic performance. For the students
who attended the ELICOS and college pathway courses, their belief that the courses
provided sufficient preparation for tertiary study indicated an encouraging start for their
transition. Meko and Trang, the two students who enrolled based on their language test
results, were the least confident regarding their academic skills, but addressed the gaps
in their understanding by independently using university resources. The participants’
acknowledgement regarding the need to adapt to their new learning environment, and the
way they embraced and valued disciplinary literacy practices, provided a solid foundation
for their identity reconstruction.
Mediating Courses and Assessments

The students demonstrated student agency by attending most classes, reviewing course
content before and after lectures, and reading course materials they perceived were
relevant to participate in class, undertake assignments, and study for exams. All their
courses included written tasks, presentations, and mid-semester exams, and a challenge
they encountered was completing multiple assignments at once. Although this was a
new method of assessment compared to their previous academic contexts, it was not
unexpected and participants understood they needed to spend the majority of their study
time preparing for and completing assessment tasks. In particular, they dedicated time
to researching library databases to locate academic sources for written assignments, and
while they found the academic writing process time consuming, they persevered and
endeavored to complete assignments to disciplinary standards. Meko commented, “I
think the long time it takes to do the research is normal.”
Participants described other ways they mediated course assessments. For example,
Camilla just passed her first mid-semester exam and failed her second one, even though
she thought she knew the content. She had not experienced multiple choice exams
before and realized they contained more questions and topics than she anticipated. She
adapted her approach by increasing her revision of course lecture slides and disciplinary
vocabulary, and was relieved to score 35/50 in her third mid-semester exam. Jaili also failed
her first mid-semester exam, as did her Chinese friends taking the course. She became
worried when 2 weeks passed and the lecturer had not provided exam feedback. Her
28 Freeman and Li
solution was to form a study group with her friends. She had noticed domestic students
studying together and was eager to adopt a similar approach, believing group discussions
would help her identify and correct errors. Initially, Jaili was disappointed because her
friends resisted and preferred to continue studying on their own. She persevered and
eventually convinced them to practice problems and calculations together to prepare for
their final exams. She was delighted to have changed her “Chinese way of studying” and
reflected that discussing course content with peers helped increase her understanding.
As the semester progressed, when the participants began to receive passes or higher
for written assignments, it reinforced their belief that time spent on course assessments
was worthwhile. They also discussed the importance of being independent learners
because, as Camilla observed “teachers don’t explain anything about academic skills
except to say we must reference and we’re expected to know how to answer assignments.”
The participants’ weekly accounts of their experiences across the disciplines confirmed
this view, as there was little evidence of embedded language or literacy instruction.
Participants expressed both surprise and disappointment that most teachers did not
provide exam and assignment feedback. Filipe worried, “This is terrible. I can’t prepare
for my exams if I don’t have feedback.” Meko recounted, “They [teachers] don’t comment.
Just “I recognize your efforts’ or ‘excellent’ or ‘good’.” Gabriella described her experience:
I just get the mark, I didn’t get feedback. It’s getting normal for me but it’s
strange. Normally in Japan we would get the feedback and check which
part we got the mistake. Yeah, I want the feedback. If they can tell the
feedbacks that would be better. Then I won’t make the same mistake
anymore.
The exception regarding the provision of instruction and feedback was the language
and communication courses. Course content included language enhancement and a
process approach to writing instruction that involved an essay outline and draft. Teachers
provided verbal feedback on outlines and extensive written feedback on drafts, before
students submitted a final essay for assessment. Participants valued the feedback because
it specifically addressed aspects of their language and literacy they needed to improve.
Trang reflected, “My tutor said I was too descriptive. More critical analysis. I need to
discuss the influence of the theory, not just what the theory is.” The participants described
the feedback in detail, as well as how they responded to it—for example, improving
use of articles and tense, being careful to avoid non-academic English, writing clearer
topic sentences, and increasing the use of cohesive devices within paragraphs. Filipe
explained, “I know what the teachers are looking for now.” The participants’ appreciation
for opportunities to receive language and literacy instruction and feedback suggests
disciplines should address this gap in current curricula.
Another challenge participants shared during Semester 1 was working on group
assignments with domestic students. They described similar experiences and expressed
genuine surprise when domestic groupmates did not attend lectures or reply to messages
to organize group meetings. Gabriella put forward a strong opinion:
Not coming to the meetings and not doing stuff. I would tell [other
international students] don’t do the group assignments with the local
students. We, all Asian students say don’t do with them. They are lazy.
Most of them, not all of them.
Two days before Trang was due to submit a group written assessment, the domestic
students in his group replied to him for the first time, after he had tried for weeks to
contact them. He was unhappy when they insisted on delegating most of the assignment
to themselves, even though they knew Trang and his other groupmate, a Korean student,
had already divided the task into four equal sections and completed their parts. Trang’s
interpretation was “they think Asian students couldn’t do the task or wouldn’t do it very
well.” On the day of submission, the domestic students sent their parts to Trang to
put together because “they didn’t have time.” He was shocked, and then annoyed, that
they had not addressed the assignment criteria correctly, or acknowledged sources. His
domestic group mates dismissed his attempts to point out the sections that did not
align with the tutor’s instructions, and argued that references were not required. Trang
submitted on time after spending many hours fixing their parts, and adding in-text
references and a reference list.
Filipe also reported his experience working with domestic students who refused
to meet to organize a group presentation. Filipe prepared his part on his own, and was
panicking the day of the presentation:
I’m scared [of what will happen]. I know my part but the flow won’t be
good. They don’t care. They said they just want to pass. Not even sure we
will.
The week after the presentation he reported what occurred:
They [domestic students] had no eye contact with the audience at all!
Just reading [from their papers]. Weird. The Professor said I was the best
speaker. It was amazing. He said I spoke so well, and naturally, and he
couldn’t tell English was my second language. The whole class agreed.
I’m so happy.
The participants found it stressful, as well as puzzling, working with students who
overlooked disciplinary conventions and criteria, and were content to “just pass.” It was
a situation they had not previously encountered in group work in their home countries.
According to Filipe, students should know “the purpose of group work is to discuss with
others and get different views because it is important to share.” At the end of Semester
1, the participants resolved to avoid group work with students who were not prepared to
cooperate.
The students responded to the challenges they faced by taking responsibility for
their own learning and focusing on completing assignments to the level they believed
was expected. They took advantage of feedback when it was given and used university
resources when required to increase their knowledge and skills. At the end of Semester
1, their academic results suggested they successfully transitioned into their new learning
environment. Meko was “surprised but happy” to receive three high distinctions for her
three courses. Trang received two distinctions, a credit, and a pass and was pleased with
30 Freeman and Li
his efforts. He suggested “most international students, we are working very hard.” Jaili
received a high distinction and three credits, and Gabriella described feeling “proud” of
two credits and two passes. Camilla was satisfied with two passes, a credit, and a high
distinction, but also mentioned being used to higher marks in Brazil:
I don’t like my marks in here, I’m just a middle student, I don’t like that.
And I study hard but studying in English it’s complicated. So it’s hard but
I think I do my best, so it’s all right.
Filipe achieved two passes and a distinction. He also failed one course, which he took
responsibility for after not attending the last 5 weeks of lectures. He regretted that decision:
I realised I didn’t know the meaning for some words [in the exam]
specifically about biological systems. I knew everything in Portuguese I
just didn’t know the vocabulary in English. So if I had attended the class,
for sure I would know the vocabulary so it was my fault. But it’s my first
time in an international university so I don’t feel disappointed.
The deficit view of international students assumes their previous education and cultural
backgrounds constrain learning. The findings above contradict this view, with participants
demonstrating student agency and educational capital, which enabled them to achieve
first semester results they believed reflected their ability and efforts.
Ghosts in the Classroom

In contrast to the confidence participants demonstrated when they discussed course
requirements and assessments, their experiences in the classroom during Semester 1
exposed a disparate narrative. All participants described feeling isolated in class, being
scared and afraid when they communicated with NES students, and feeling insecure about
their intercultural competence. These challenges were further compounded by lack of
opportunities for meaningful engagement and interactions in class. According to Camilla,
international students “are a ghost in the class. We go in we go out no one sees us.”
In the first weeks of Semester 1, participants expressed reluctance to ask teachers
questions in case they could not understand the answers. However, it did not take long to
change their minds once they had opportunities to consult with teachers before and after
class. Participants agreed that most teachers were welcoming and supportive. Despite
their anxiety easing somewhat in terms of interacting with teachers, communication with
domestic students remained a constant source of worry. Jaili described how she felt:
I’m just afraid. I’m afraid they [domestic students] cannot understand
what I am talking about.I’m also afraid I cannot understand what they
are talking about. And I’m afraid they don’t like other people to ask them
anything.It’s like we have nothing in common. What is private, what
would make them unhappy or uncomfortable? I’m not sure so I’m just
afraid.
The uncertainty participants felt when they interacted with domestic students in the
classroom was a significant challenge that they found difficult to overcome. While
they were content to describe their courses and literacy practices in the interviews,
invariably the topic they wanted to discuss the most was how to engage with domestic
students. Camilla, Filipe, and Gabriella described instances where they attempted to start
conversations with domestic students in class, but were met with disinterest, or they had a
short conversation and then the following week the same students ignored them as if they
had never spoken before. Gabriella often tried to interact with domestic students:
They’re [domestic students] not interested in me. They don’t really care.
I can see that. I feel like, I think a divide. Because if they were interested
in us, I will be happy.
Filipe also expressed his disappointment:
When I talk to domestic students, my heart starts hurting, because I feel

like they do not like talking with non-native speakers. I thought it would
be a little bit different.
A common theme across the cases was this struggle to understand domestic students’ lack
of interest in them. Initially, participants shared the belief that their imperfect English
and lack of intercultural understanding caused domestic students to feel uncomfortable.
The participants routinely blamed their own English proficiency as the reason for non-
existent or awkward classroom interactions with domestic students. However, by the end
of Semester 1, participants began realizing that communicating with teachers and other
international students was not as scary as they thought, and language was not a barrier to
engaging in their courses and meeting assessment criteria. The unpleasant interactions
with domestic students during group assignments also prompted a slight shift away from
the perception that the lack of engagement with domestic students was solely their own
fault.
Based on their understanding of Australian academic culture, participants had
expected opportunities in tutorials to discuss course content, form relationships with
NES students, and enhance their intercultural communication. Jaili noted at the end of
Semester 1:
Well [expected] more time for discussing.I was thinking I could talk with
other countries people and practice my English and make a lot of friends.
So, not happening.A little bit disappointing. The teachers do talking a
lot. We don’t have time to discuss by ourselves. The teachers talk and the
students listen.
Despite their intense disappointment regarding the lack of classroom interactions, the
participants remained resilient and directed their attention towards their studies and
building friendships with other international students. NNES students come to English-
speaking countries with the reasonable expectation of engaging with NES students.
For the international students in this study, the classroom contact zone in Semester
32 Freeman and Li
1 did not provide such opportunities, and instead prompted feelings of doubt and a
divide between international and domestic students. This emphasizes the importance of
inclusive learning environments that facilitate opportunities for all students to enhance
their intercultural communication skills.
New Feelings of Belonging

In the first weeks of Semester 2, everything changed. The students arrived for their
interviews excited to share positive classroom experiences that had transformed the
disappointment of Semester 1 into happiness that their academic community knew they
were there and cared about them. For example, when one of Gabriella’s teachers showed
genuine interest, she reported feeling comfortable in class for the first time:
He cares about us, each of us.Sometimes he asked us, the Asian students,
“did you understand?” Like that. And I feel like oh, he is worrying about
us, he can see us, he is thinking of us.
Filipe described a conversation with a teacher who recognized his efforts:
She [my lecturer] started talking about how hard it must be for me to
learn a different language and give a seminar to native speakers. I think
this was the only time I had an interaction with a Professor for the fact
we were overseas students. That’s the best moment for me to feel part of
the university.
In Semester 1, Camilla had believed international students were ghosts in the classroom.
One lecturer shifted this perception:
In the first lecture the Professor put “welcome to Brazilian students” on

the first slide in Portuguese and in English. I think for the first time, “oh!
Someone knows we are here!” And every lecture she put in [examples of ]
Brazil and she says “oh in Brazil it is working this way.” So she worrying
about how it works in your country, I think it’s nice. This semester they
know about us, the Professors. Last semester they didn’t know about us,
who we are. I think when some people is interested in what are you doing
in another country it’s amazing. It changes the experience.
These responses to new classroom experiences suggest teachers play a vital role in
nurturing students’ feelings of belonging. Although the teachers’ actions were small,
the impact was significant because they created positive emotions participants had not
previously felt in the classroom contact zone. However, across the cases, there was only
one more example of positive classroom engagement. In Semester 1, Filipe’s “heart hurt”
when he tried to communicate with domestic students. In the first week of Semester 2, one
of his courses held a field trip, and initially he felt apprehensive because he was the only
international student. He described feeling happily surprised when he connected with the
other students:
It [the field trip] broke the barrier. I’m more free now. I can breathe. You
don’t feel so ashamed when you’ve got interaction with your classmates.
You know them and you feel comfortable.You have a voice.
Yet, the toll Semester 1 had taken on Filipe’s emotions emerged when he reported feeling
worried that he would arrive in class the week after the field trip and no one would talk to
him. He was “amazed” when the opposite occurred:
I had good interactions with everybody together. I can feel that I’m just a
student, normal. Like the other students and I can do whatever they can
do. Before I was, I don’t know, somebody apart.
Filipe’s experiences reinforce the imperative of embedding opportunities for peer

engagement within course content. In addition, the simplicity of the classroom practices
which fostered participants’ feelings of belonging revealed that even small efforts of
inclusion eased the strong feelings of stress and apprehension they experienced in
Semester 1. These findings highlight the responsibility of teachers to provide inclusive
classrooms environments, which can help reduce communication barriers and bridge the
divide perceived by international students.
Discussion
A salient finding in the cross-case analysis was that despite participants’ diverse
backgrounds and fields of study, their experiences were similar across the disciplines.
These findings reposition the deficit view of international students and expose disparities
between first-year students’ needs and classroom practices, reaffirming previous research
recommending institutions pay critical attention to improving how they support first-
year students’ transition into global learning environments. Globally mobile students
are often high achievers in their home countries (Marginson, 2013; Tobell & Burton,
2015), and as such, the transition into English-speaking universities may challenge their
student identities. The participants in this study responded to this challenge and took
responsibility for their academic socialization by extending on previous educational
experiences and acquiring new literacy practices and ways of learning. Although some
participants failed early assessment tasks, they demonstrated student agency and engaged
in their new learning environment by attending class, fulfilling course requirements,
adhering to disciplinary conventions, and responding to teacher feedback. Similar
to findings by Gargano (2012) and Pham and Saltmarsh (2013), the students in this
study embraced Australian academic culture and believed their new knowledge and
skills would be advantageous for their future education and careers. Participants’ first
semester academic results not only indicated they understood and valued disciplinary
literacy practices, their achievements also reinforced their perceptions of themselves as
hardworking students committed to their education.
As highlighted by the overlapping levels of the academic literacies framework, the
transition into tertiary learning environments requires more than understanding and
participating in disciplinary requirements. First-year students are learners and by that
definition, need guidance, feedback, and support, as well as opportunities to engage with
34 Freeman and Li
teachers and peers to create feelings of acceptance and belonging (Dunworth, 2013; Glass
et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2016). Although the participants positioned
themselves as motivated and willing, their first semester classroom experiences indicated
university disciplines had not yet operationalized an academic literacies approach.
At the same time as participants were constructing positive student identities and
educational capital in their courses, they encountered classroom environments across
the disciplines that created feelings of doubt and isolation. Assumptions of deficit,
lack of opportunities for language and literacy instruction or teacher feedback, and
difficulties interacting with peers constrained participants’ access into their new discourse
community. In Semester 1, the classroom was not a contact zone at all and instead,
challenged participants’ student and cultural identities. This resonates with Scotland’s
(2014) view that identity renegotiation in global learning environments may be disrupted
if interactions between teachers and students in the contact zone are not encouraged and
maintained. Nevertheless, consistent with previous studies (Marginson, 2013; Pham &
Saltmarsh, 2013), the participants’ sense of self remained strong, and their pragmatism
and resilience allowed them to put disappointment aside and focus on achieving their
academic goals.
Although the national symposiums and Good Practice Principles have prompted
increased institutional support for international cohorts, there was a contradiction
between reported classroom practices and recommended first-year strategies of embed-
ding opportunities for cross-cultural interactions and academic support into curricula.
There was evidence of language and literacy instruction and feedback in the language
and communication courses, but as Fenton-Smith et al. (2015) pointed out, these courses
cannot be viewed as a “silver bullet” for first-year transitioning and should be considered
one part of a whole of an institution’s approach. This study also demonstrates that dis-
ciplinary curricula must do more to facilitate engagement among students from diverse
backgrounds. Slaten et al. (2016) suggested that academic achievement is a critical factor
in enhancing international students’ sense of belonging. However, even when participants
in this study began constructing strong student identities as a result of fulfilling course
demands, feelings of belonging were the missing piece of the puzzle that hindered them
from flourishing in Semester 1. In contrast, critical moments of inclusion and recognition
in Semester 2, which had been absent in Semester 1, “broke the barrier,” whereby partici-
pants no longer felt like “ghosts.” Significantly, the most striking aspect was the simplicity
of the events that prompted this shift—acknowledgement on a lecture slide, a kind word
from a teacher, or the chance for meaningful engagement with peers. These findings sup-
port evidence from previous studies (Glass et al., 2015; Yefanova et al., 2016; Wingate, 2013)
regarding the essential role of teachers in fostering students’ sense of belonging.
Conclusion
This study challenges the deficit view of international students and argues that it is
the learning environment that has the deficit. The participants in this study willingly
and successfully adapted to disciplinary requirements, and as suggested by Gargano
(2012), their educational capital was not defined by nationality. However, disciplinary
curricula and classroom practices also need to adapt, and the pressure for universities
to improve how they cater for culturally diverse students remains strong. We would
argue that teachers in the contact zone are in the best position to address this challenge.
International education should be a tool to recognize diversity, promote respect for others,
and allow different perspectives to be shared (Glass et al., 2015). Classrooms provide the
ideal setting to achieve these goals. As Wingate (2015) explained, teachers are experts
in their discourse community, and are valuable resources who require investment and
support if they are to successfully implement university internationalization policies and
strategies. Consequently, it is essential that universities educate instructors regarding
their responsibility to understand who their learners are, acknowledge diversity in their
classrooms, encourage and facilitate intercultural communication, and provide effective
feedback. Teachersrequire opportunities for professional development and need to be
supported through disciplinary pedagogies and curricula that are underpinned by the
academic literacies approach. Implementing such changes across the disciplines is
necessary so that first-year international students not only transition into their disciplines,
but also develop positive student identities, feel a sense of belonging, and achieve the
graduate outcomes they, and their institutions, intend for them to gain.
Street (2013) and Wingate (2015) reflected that the slow pace of change towards
an academic literacies approach makes it critical that researchers persevere in advocating
inclusive classroom environments. This research contributes to current understandings
of first-year international students’ academic socialization and identities across university
disciplines in global contact zones. The study shows that while advancements still need to
be made to achieve the required shifts in disciplinary pedagogies, it is possible for teachers
to make a significant impact in enhancing students’ sense of belonging through small
actions and inclusive practices that demonstrate acknowledgment, interest, and genuine
care. While the case studies yielded valuable insights, a research limitation was that the
time-consuming nature of case study research meant only a small sample of the research
population could be included. Further research examining the adoption and efficacy of
classroom strategies that facilitate meaningful intercultural engagement and that nurture
students’ sense of belonging is required. Future studies could also explore professional
development that enhances teachers’ understandings of their diverse student cohorts,
and investigate teachers’ experiences in the contact zone, including factors that help and
hinder their capacity to provide inclusive learning environments.
References
Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2015). The first year experience in Australian
universities: Findings from two decades.
Chaney, M. (2013). Australia—Educating globally: Advice from the International Education
Advisory Council. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson, Saddle River, NJ.
Development (2013). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and.
36 Freeman and Li
Doherty, C. A. & Singh, P. (2007). Mobile students, flexible identities and liquid modernity:
Disrupting teachers’ assumptions of “the Asian learner.”. In Palfreyman, D. & McBride,
D. L., editors, Learning and teaching across cultures in higher education, pages 114–132,
New York, NY. Palgrave Macmillan.
Duff, P. (2014). Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 34, 233–255.
Dunworth, K. (2013). In-course student language development: A discussion paper for
a National Symposium: Five Years on: English Language Competence of International
Students. Melbourne, Australia.
Elliot, D. L., Reid, K., & Baumfield, V. (2016). Beyond the amusement, puzzlement and
challenges: an enquiry into International students’ academic acculturation. volume 41.
Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., Walkinshaw, I., Michael, R., & Lobo, A. (2015).
Implementing a university-wide credit-bearing English language enhancement program:
Issues emerging from practice. volume 42.
Gale, T., Mills, C., & Cross, R. (2017). Socially inclusive teaching: Belief, design, action as
pedagogic work. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 345–356.
Gargano, T. (2012). Grounded identities, transient lives: The emergence of international
student voices in an era of cosmopolitan learning. Journal of International Students, 2,
144–156.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning. Routledge, New York, NY.
Glass, C. R., Kociolek, E., Wongtrirat, R., Lynch, R. J., & Cong, S. (2015). Uneven
experiences: The impact of student-faculty interactions on International students’
sense of belonging. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353–367.
Gorski, P. C. (2010). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on
authenticating the class discourse in education.
Gu, M., Patkin, J., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). The dynamic identity construction in English
as Lingua Franca intercultural communication: A positioning perspective. System, 46,
131–142.
Harper, R., Prentice, S., & Wilson, K. (2011). English language perplexity: Articulating the
tensions in the DEEWR “Good Practice Principles.”. volume 2.
Hocking, D. & Fieldhouse, W. (2011). Implementing academic literacies in practice. New
Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 46(1), 35–47.
Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in university: Education knowledge and reputation. Language
Teaching, 46(1), 53–70.
International, A. E. (2007). Final report. Outcomes from a national symposium: English
language competence of international students.
International, A. E. (2013). Five years on: English language competence of international
students.
Lea, M. R. & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies
approach. volume 23.
Leask, B. (2013). Internationalising the curriculum in the disciplines—Imagining new
possibilities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 103–118.
Leask, B. & Bridge, C. (2013). Comparing internationalisation of the curriculum in action
across disciplines: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Compare. A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 79–101.

Leask, B. & Carroll, J. (2011). Moving beyond “wishing and hoping”: Internationalisation
and student experiences of inclusion and engagement. Higher Education Research &
Development, 30(5), 647–659.
Lizzio, A. (2011). The student lifecycle: An integrative framework for guiding practice.
Marginson, S. (2013). Student self-formation in international education. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 18(1), 6–22.
Pham, L. & Saltmarsh, D. (2013). International students’ identities in a globalised world:
Narratives from Vietnam. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(2), 129–141.
Safipour, J., Wenneberg, S., & Hadziabdic, E. (2017). Experience of education in the
international classroom—A systematic literature review. Journal of International
Students, 7(3), 806–824.
Scotland, J. (2014). Operating in global educational contact zones: How pedagogical
adaption to local contexts may result in the renegotiation of the professional identities
of English language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 33–43.
Slaten, C. D., Elison, Z. M., Lee, J. Y., Yough, M., & Scalise, D. (2016). Belonging on campus.
A qualitative inquiry of Asian international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(3),
383–410.
Street, B. V. (2013). Literacy in theory and practice: Challenges and debate over 50 years.
Theory into. Practice, 52(1), 52–62.
Tobell, J. & Burton, R. L. (2015). Identity and participation in UK universities: An
exploration of student experiences and university practices. International Journal of
Diversity in Education, 15(4), 21–32.
Wilson, K. L., Murphy, K. A., Pearson, A. G., Wallace, B. M., Reher, V. G. S., & Buys, N. (2016).
Understanding the early transition needs of diverse commencing university students in a
health faculty: Informing effective intervention practices. volume 41.
Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity. Multilingual Matters, Bristol,
UK.
Yan, Z. & Sendall, P. (2016). First year experience: How we can better assist first-year
International students in higher education. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 35–
51.
Yefanova, D. N., Montgomery, M. L., Woodruff, G. A., Johnstone, C. J., & Kappler, B. (2017).
Instructional practices facilitating cross-national interactions in the undergraduate
classroom. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 786–805.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage, Oaks, CA.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford, New York, NY.
Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Sage, Oaks, CA.
Author biography
Keri Freeman is a lecturer in the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science
at Griffith University in Australia. Her major research interests are in pedagogy related
to academic literacy and academic reading, and international students’ classroom
experiences.
38 Freeman and Li
Minglin Li is a senior lecturer in TESOL/Educational Linguistics in the School of

Humanities, Languages and Social Science at Griffith University in Australia. Her research
is in the field of educational linguistics with a particular focus on issues relating to English
as an Additional Language.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 39–65
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.278
ojed.org/jis
Asian International Student and Asian

American Student: Mistaken Identity and
Racial Microaggressions
Hye Jin Tina Yeoa , Ruby Mendenhallb , Stacy Anne Harwoodc and
Margaret Browne Huntta
Abstract: This study examines the experiences of Asian American students who are mistaken
as Asian international students; it provides insight into domestic students’ perceptions of and
potential racial microaggressive experiences of international students. Drawing from racial
microaggression survey data of Asian Americans, this study highlights the multiple layers of overt
racism, microaggressions, and xenophobia directed against students who are perceived as Asian
international students. The Asian American students’ narratives reveal that international students
are often racialized by skin color, English proficiency, and nationality, which reflect U.S. racist
framings of Asian Americans. Thus, we argue that racial experiences of Asian international
students should be addressed as a part of U.S. racial ideology, notions of Whiteness, and racial
microaggressions on campus.
Keywords: race, stereotypes, racial microaggressions, racialization, Asian international

students, Asian American students, higher education, racial campus climate
Background
Over a million international students from different countries attend U.S. institutions
of higher education. High enrollment numbers of international students contribute
to diversity, knowledge and skill exchanges, financial revenue, and global competence
promotion for American college students (Altbach, 2004; Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Greenblatt,
2005; Hanassab, 2006; NAFSA, 2017). In 2016, international students arrived from over
a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

b Carle Illinois College of Medicine.
c University of Utah.
Corresponding authors: hyeo8@illinois.edu (Hye Jin Tina Yeo), rubymen@illinois.edu (Ruby

Mendenhall), harwood@arch.utah.edu (Stacy Anne Harwood), mbrowne@illinois.edu
(Margaret Browne Huntt)
40 Yeo et al.
222 countries, composing 5.3% of all U.S. higher education student populations—with
proportions varying by state and district (Institute for International Education [IIE], 2017).
Current enrollment growth rates rely on China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Korea (IIE, 2017).
International students are often perceived as a monolithic entity in terms of nationality,
class, status, and race (Greenblatt, 2005; Kim & Kim, 2010) within U.S. educational settings.
Indeed, international students are invisible from multiculturalism and racial/ethnic
diversity discourses (DiAngelo, 2006; Sato & Hodge, 2009). Given the current uncertain
political and social climates that influence immigrants and international students in the
United States, this study promotes meaningful discourse around international students’
encounters with racial microaggressions (RMAs) as they pursue higher education in U.S.
institutions.
Abdullah, Abd Aziz, and Mohd Ibrahim’s (2014) review of research on international
students revealed that studies tend to rely heavily on students’ mobility, academic and
general experiences in university settings, and linguistic and cultural challenges. In
addition, discrimination and isolation, as factors of international students’ experiences,
were just briefly mentioned in related literature on the subject (Abdullah et al., 2014).
However, there is very limited research that examines international students’ experiences
with race and racism in U.S. society, the underlying reasons why they experience
discrimination, and how they are racialized in systems of U.S. higher education. Likewise,
studies are not largely devoted to understanding how international students experience
race and racial bias before and after U.S. arrival, with the exception of Ritter (2016).
Existing racial taxonomy, and related complexities regarding the reasons for international
students’ marginalization on U.S. campuses, remains unquestioned and unexamined.
According to Omi and Winant (2015), “race” in the United States depends on meanings,
associations, and social practices that permit phenotypic distinctions among human
bodies. Race is a social construct and categorization produced through “the act of
noticing” others (Martinot, 2003, p. 75), i.e., racialization on a daily basis. Thus,
“racialization” occurs when a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice,
or group receives racial labels and meanings imposed externally (Miles, 1988; Omi &
Winant, 1994, 2015). Consequently, international students become “racialized” as they
become integrated into U.S. society. In particular, international students of color report
a marginalized status and experiences of racial bias and discrimination by the White
majority. Such experiences often result in relation to distinct phenotypical characteristics,
English accents, nationality, international student status, and religion. Meanwhile,
international students from Western and English-speaking countries perceive minimal to
no discrimination (Bordoloi, 2014; Bradley, 2000; Constantine, Kindaichi, Okazaki, Gainor,
& Baden, 2005; DiAngelo, 2006; Lee & Rice, 2007; Poyrazli, Arbona, Bullington, & Pisecco,
2001; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Wong, Tsai, Liu, Zhu, & Wei, 2014). White international students,
for instance, were more likely to be perceived as “natives” (White) in the U.S. context. By
comparison, international students of color were regarded by peers as “others” (foreigners;
Lee & Rice, 2007; Lewis, 2016).
Employing quantitative analyses, Poyrazli and Lopez’s (2007) study found that interna-
tional students reported higher levels of perceived discrimination and homesickness than
U.S. students. Further studies reveal that international students are marginalized based
Asian International Student and American Student 41
on skin color, nationality, gender, and religion via explicit and covert forms of inhospital-
ity and discrimination (Bordoloi, 2014; Houshmand, Spanierman, & Tafarodi, 2014; Lee &
Rice, 2007; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). Their RMAs and racialization experiences are severely
underreported and underresearched (Chong & Razek, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2010).
For a discussion about racialization experiences in the U.S. context, it is necessary to
define the terms “international students” and “domestic students.” This study defines
“international students” as students from countries outside the United States, especially
those from diverse racial/ethnic, historical, social, cultural, political, linguistic, and
religious backgrounds. Background factors are often remarkably different from the host
culture. Clarifying the term “international students” to refer to students from different
contexts, the study aims to reflect the complexities of relationships among international
students and U.S. society. An individual holds different meanings and social identities.
The international student recognizes the “self” in a new society with concepts of social
constructs not previously imagined. Shifts in perspective signal a necessarily nuanced
framework for fuller understandings of the complexities of multidimensional social
identities.
This study refers to “domestic students” (mostly White) to indicate students with the
U.S. citizenship. This term includes students of color, such as Asian American students,
but it is more likely to refer to White students from our data in this paper. This study
focuses on how domestic students perceive Asian international students. It addresses
biases, prejudices, and RMAs perpetrated against international students through Asian
American students’ voices. Counter stories of Asian American students, who are often
mistaken for Asian international students on campus, are sources for sharing experiences
of Asian international students. Examining domestic students’ attitudes, interactions, and
perceptions of international students provides insight into the racialization experiences
of international students attending predominantly White universities. It is critical to
understand Asian American students’ experiences of RMAs because they have an acute
awareness of U.S. racial issues that intersects with international students’ experiences.
This study aims to disrupt a deficit perspective concerning Asian international students
and to reveal unheard stories of discrimination and maltreatment targeting Asian
international students. Asian American students’ counter-narratives are employed to
answer the following research questions:
1. How are Asian international students racialized?

2. What forms of microaggressions do domestic students explicitly express against
Asian international students?
3. How are racial microaggressions expressed toward Asian international students
similar to or different from racial microaggressions experienced by Asian American
students?
42 Yeo et al.
Literature Review
Racial Experiences of International Students in the United States
Scholars widely recognize challenges of acculturation and assimilation faced by interna-
tional students at U.S. universities, such as language barriers, cultural differences, stigma,
discrimination, isolation, and pressures for academic performance (Harrison & Peacock,
2009, 2010; Jon, 2013; Montgomery & McDowell, 2009; Trice, 2004; Wilton & Constan-
tine, 2003). Generally, these factors are not regarded by university administrators as part
of racial climate issues or a systemic problem within U.S. institutions. Given such cli-
mates and lack of attention, international students often mistakenly feel they are implicitly
responsible for their experiences of discrimination. One way that international students
interpret discrimination as an individual-level problem is by saying it is due to their low-
level language proficiency or cultural differences, which often cause them to withdraw
from academic spheres (Houshmand et al., 2014). Unfortunately, these challenges are
generally considered as temporary issues that will decrease once international students
become more familiar with American culture and improve their English proficiency. This
misguided belief suggests that the responsibilities for adapting to a host culture is a burden
that international students must address alone, often without institutional support (Bevis,
2002).
Meanwhile, students from Western and English-speaking countries report minimal to
no discrimination (Bordoloi, 2014; Bradley, 2000; Constantine et al., 2005; DiAngelo, 2006;
Lee & Rice, 2007; Poyrazli et al., 2001; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Wong et al., 2014). International
students of color report experiences of racial bias and discrimination due to distinct
phenotypical characteristics, English accents, nationality, international student status,
and religion. Lee and Rice (2007) theorized verbal and nonverbal insults, ignorance, and
negative stereotypes experienced by internationals students as neo-racism. Their neo-
racism framework focuses on foreign students’ status and foreign cultural practices, rather
than a continuum of racism embedded in American society.
It is important, however, to consider the continuum of racism because international
students are marginalized based on their skin color and race and being viewed as “others”
(foreigners; Lee & Rice, 2007; Lewis, 2016). Poyrazli and Grahame’s (2007) focus groups
revealed that international students of color experienced subtle discrimination and overt
racism on campus during group work assignments. Hostile experiences endured by
international students of color (likely Asian or Hispanic students) stood in distinct contrast
to the experiences of White German students.
Arguably, patterns of racism and RMAs that American students of color endure are
similar to those of international students of color: overt racial slurs and expressed disdain,
second-class citizen status, pathologies of cultural values and communication styles,
assumptions of criminality, and alienation in their own country(Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Omi
& Winant, 2015; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue, 2010a, 2010b; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, &
Solórzano, 2009). Common stereotypes of Asian Americans, such as a “model minority
alienated by one’s own country” (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007), similarly apply
to Asian international students (Houshmand et al., 2014). African international students
experience stereotypes of criminality, just as African American students in the United
States (Mwaura, 2008). Consequently, many international students are racialized and
socialized by others who use stereotypes of a racial group that is ascribed to them (e.g.,
African international students are seen as Blacks or Chinese and Korean international
students are seen as Asian). These racialized practices occur as international students
become integrated into U.S. academic institutions and social settings on and off campus.
A report on the post-2016 U.S. presidential election’s impact on academic life and
activity at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, indicated that uncertain political,
social, and cultural climates negatively influenced international students’ academic
performance and their physical and psychological well-being (Chan, 2017). The report
indicated anxiety over staying and living in the United States and fear of traveling inside
and outside the country. This is true even among those holding permanent residency.
International students reported experiencing disadvantages in regard to internships,
funding, and employment opportunities because of uncertainty and hostility surrounding
matters of work-related immigration.
In this type of campus climate, international students experience difficulties in finding
adequate support systems and resources such as legal services. Therefore, they are
often fearful and face more difficulty when trying to solve issues (Chan, 2017). A lack
of understanding about hostile political and social climates remains an impediment for
creating a more sympathetic environment and addressing experiences of overt racism and
RMAs that seriously affect international students’ psychological and physical well-being
(Bradley, 2000; Iwamoto & Liu, 2010; Meghani & Harvey, 2016; Mori, 2000; Poyrazli &
Lopez, 2007; Wilton & Constantine, 2003).
Theoretical Framework and Methodology

We use EYES theory and counter-storytelling as theoretical and methodological lenses for
understanding the experience of Asian international students in a predominantly White
institution. An RMA framework is utilized to provide examples of iterative and multiple
occurrences whereby international students are discriminated against.
EYES Theory
Yeo, McKee, and Trent (2018) proposed EYES theory to provide a framework for challenging
indifference toward racial experiences of international students and for addressing the
process of racialization and racial identity development. EYES uses a visual metaphor
for appraisals of self and others through social/cultural/racial stereotypes based on
phenotypic traits among international students. International students’ eyes may see and
perceive issues of race and others (appraisal), continue to change while studying abroad
(place), and influence developments of racial identity and views by others from different
races (identity). Following race scholars’ beliefs, EYES theory starts with the premise that
race and racism play key roles in defining and explaining unequal relationships of power
and subordination in education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano, 1997). Racism
often manifests by intersecting with other forms of subordination such as gender, class,
foreigner status, nationality, language, and culture along with race/ethnicity (Crenshaw,
1991).
44 Yeo et al.
The tenets of EYES theory are (a) international students of color undergo a cataclysmic
transition in race concepts as they attempt to integrate into predominantly White
universities; and (b) the U.S. racialized campus climates and racial stereotypes rooted
in U.S. historical, sociocultural, and political contexts influence the college experiences
and identity development of international students of color (Yeo et al., 2018). The intent
of the EYES theory is to center race and racism in the racialized U.S. social structure
as a filter for the examination of prevailing stories, counter-stories, and constructions
of reality that international students encounter on the U.S. campus. The EYES theory
challenges deficit perspectives that regard international students as a monolithic entity
and global commodity, resulting in their racial experiences being overlooked and invisible.
By challenging deficit perspectives, the EYES theory can serve as a useful tool to analyze
overt racism and RMAs targeting international students and to provide insights that can
improve transitions to predominantly White universities in the United States.
Figure 1 illustrates the framework of this study. The racialized campus climates include,
but are not limited to, domestic students, administrators, faculty, hidden curriculums (e.g.,
injustice of lecture contents and instructions), dominant culture, and policy (e.g., visa
acquisition and employment restrictions). Given differing statuses such as citizenship
and English proficiency, Asian American students and Asian international students have
different degrees of and dissimilar RMAs. The intersection of the two groups, however,
implies that both student groups suffer from similar forms of RMAs (e.g., ascription of
intelligence, issues regarding language) based on racial/ethnic biases.
RMAs Targeting International Students

The term “racial microaggression” was first introduced by Chester Pierce in the 1970s to
refer to minor acts of discrimination that are experienced frequently by people of color,
in particular by African Americans. According to Sue (2010b, p. 3), microaggressions
are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether
intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages
to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership. Individuals
engaged in microaggressions target marginalized groups based on race, gender, sexual
orientation, disability, class, and religion, often on a subconscious level.
Further, Kim and Kim (2010) conceptualized microaggressions experienced by
international students by adapting Sue’s taxonomy (Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). They
provided examples of microaggressions that international students encounter: ascription
of intelligence; pathologizing cultural values and communication styles; invalidating
international perspectives; assumption of homogeneity, exclusion, and social avoidance;
invisibility; and environmental and systematic microaggressions. Such microaggressions
occur in academic and social places. International students rarely have a support system
akin to those given to students of color on U.S. campuses (Chan, 2017; DiAngelo, 2006).
They remain marginalized based on skin color, gender, and foreign status.
According to the taxonomy of RMAs (Sue, 2010a, 2010b), four forms of microaggressions
are classified: microassaults, microinsults, microinvalidation, and environmental
microaggressions. Microassaults, the most overt of the three, are “conscious biased
beliefs or attitudes that are held by individuals and intentionally expressed or acted
Figure 1. The conceptual framework. Adapted from “EYES Theory: A Proposed Racialization and
Developmental Identity Model for Understanding Concepts of Race for International Students of
Color Studying in US Higher Education Institutions” by H. J. Yeo, M. McKee, & W. Trent, in J. Hoffman,
P. Blessinger, & M. Makhanya (Eds.), Perspectives on Diverse Student Identities in Higher Education:
International Perspectives on Equity and Inclusion, 2018, Bingley, UK: Emerald. Copyright 2018 by
Emerald Publishing.
out overtly or covertly” toward international students (Sue, 2010b, p. 8). The
distinct difference of microassaults from the other two forms is that the perpetrator’s
conscious bias toward an identified and socially devalued group may be directly and
publicly expressed. Microinsults, significantly different from microassaults, are “either
interpersonal interactions (verbal/nonverbal) or environmental cues that communicate
rudeness, insensitivity, slights, and insults that demean” international students’ racial,
gender, religion, or cultural and national identity (Sue, 2010b, p. 9). Microinsults may
present as compliments or positive statements toward the target group, disguising racial
bias without guilt. According to Sue (2010a, 2010b), microinvalidations are the most
harmful form, presenting a direct attack feature or denial of the target’s experiential
realities. Microinvalidations occur through “interpersonal and environmental cues that
exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences”
of international students (Sue, 2010b, p. 10). Environmental microaggressions occur on an
institutional level (e.g., policies and recruitment and admission practices) and are evident
in the built environment (e.g., images of honor that are predominantly White, classes
with one or very few students of color). In other words, these “numerous demeaning
and threatening social, educational, political, or economic cues” (Sue, 2010b, p. 25)
involve individual, institutional, or societal communication toward marginalized groups.
Environmental microaggressions are generally unnoticeable by majority and privileged
groups. However, they are often quite visible to minority and underrepresented groups
46 Yeo et al.
such as domestic students of color and international students. Specific examples of

environmental microaggressions for international students include policies and practices
related to obtaining student visa and work permits; lack of legal, financial, social, and
culturally relevant resources and supports; and being viewed as economic commodities
during recruitment-related activities. Examining racialized campus climates facilitates
understanding and theorizing international students’ racial experience and racial identity
development in U.S. institutions of higher education.
Counter-Storytelling
Scholars and researchers employ storytelling in social sciences, humanities, the law,
and educational research. Counter-storytelling generally relates to critical race theory
frameworks (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Counter-storytelling is defined as a method of
“telling the story of those experiences that have not been told” (Solórzano & Yosso,
2002a, p. 156), and as a tool for “analyzing and challenging the majoritarian stories of
racial privilege” (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002b, p. 32). It involves constructing experiences
of marginalized groups to be heard and made visible. Specifically, counter-storytelling
“help[s] us understand what life is like for others, and invite[s] the reader into a new and
unfamiliar world” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 41). Counter-stories are grounded in real-
life experiences, and empirical data draw from contextualized social situations (Solórzano
& Yosso, 2002b). Counter-storytelling is powerful for uncovering the realities of people of
color and humanizing experiences to educational research, theory, and practice.
Counter-storytelling can be found in three general forms. These include: personal
stories and narratives, composite stories and narratives, and other people’s stories and
narratives (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002a, 2002b). Personal stories and narratives describe
individual experiences of various forms of racism and oppression (Solórzano & Yosso,
2002a, 2002b). Such lived experiences can be analyzed within the sociopolitical context in
critical race theory and methodology in education (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). Composite
stories and narratives recount experiences of people of color from various data sources,
such as literature or interviews. These sources offer biographical or autobiographical
analysis in research (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Other people’s
stories and narratives allow individuals to reveal another person’s experiences with and
responses to racism as told in a third-person voice (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). This type of
counter-story tends to offer biographical analysis of the experiences of a person of color
in relation to U.S. institutions and in a given sociohistorical context (Solórzano & Yosso,
2002).
Hence, the use of counter-stories provides opportunities to challenge discourses of the
majority. In this study, Asian American students’ narratives of their experiences with racial
targeting recount the experiences of international students’ experiences with racism and
RMAs. Due to similar phenotypic traits, Asian stereotypes rooted in U.S. racism project
onto Asian international students. Such RMAs affect both Asian American and Asian
international students’ quality of college life and success. In this regard, this study serves
as a rare and meaningful way to reveal hidden RMAs experienced by international students
studying at U.S. institutions of higher education.
Research Method
By engaging in counter-storytelling, this study analyzes Asian American students’ counter-
narratives as a way to examine international students’ racial experiences. Asian
American students’ counter-narratives about racial targeting from Whites due to mistaken
international student identity provide context and visibility (“voice”) to Asian international
students by challenging and uncovering privileged discourses (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004).
This study acknowledges that using Asian American students’ counter-narratives to
examine international students’ racial experiences may be unconventional. Nevertheless,
the lived experiences of international students must be documented, drawing from data
and existing literature about their racialized encounters. It is critical to attend to Asian
American students’ experiences of RMAs because, compared to international students,
they have a strong, acute awareness of U.S. racial issues. This study offers potential for
initiating systemic changes to perceiving international students’ racial experience that
may lead to positive developments in higher education.
Data
For purposes of this study, research data relied on a University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign (UIUC) RMAs survey administered to domestic students of color who
attended the university during the 2011–2012 academic year. Over 4,800 students of color
completed the survey, a 45% response rate. The survey respondents included domestic
students of color born in the United States. and lawful permanent residents (LPRs). These
LPRs, or “green card” holders, are non-U.S. citizens, but they are lawfully authorized to live
permanently in the United States and represent 10% of all students of color who responded
to the survey. International students were not included in the sample.
Specifically, this study focused on the Asian students surveyed within the sample group
(43% of respondents reported Asian American identity, both U.S. citizens and LPRs). Table
1 presents background characteristics of just Asian American students who responded to
the survey. Regarding citizenship status, 18% of Asian American students who responded
to the survey are green card holders.
The survey included three open-ended qualitative questions: (a) When did you feel
uncomfortable, insulted, invalidated, or disrespected by a comment charged with racial
overtones? (b) When did others subtly express stereotypical beliefs about race/ethnicity?
(c) When did others suggest that you do not belong at the UIUC campus because of
your race or ethnicity? Combined, these three questions resulted in approximately 3,000
responses by the Asian American survey participants. The analysis revealed that Asian
American students experience pushback, debates, mistaken national identity, backlash
against international students on campus, and mental and physical consequences of
experiences of RMAs.
Data Analysis
Asian American students’ counter-stories about the racial experiences of international
students were coded by employing a directed-content analysis method. The goal of this
method is “to validate or extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory” (Hsieh
48 Yeo et al.
Table 1. Asian American survey participant characteristics as a sample percentage.
Characteristics % of Asian American Students

(n =1,509)
Gender
Male 49.9
Female 50.0
Missing/Other 00.1
Student Class
Freshman 12.3
Sophomore 18.4
Junior 19.8
Senior 33.0
Graduate 16.5
Science, Technology, Engineering, and mathematics
(STEM)
STEM 47.1
Non-STEM 52.9
Citizenship
Citizen 81.9
LPR 18.1
Note. LPR = lawful permanent resident.
& Shannon, 2005, p. 1281). Directed content analysis helps researchers with coding
procedures by indicating pre-identified key concepts or variables. For purposes of this
study, the researchers’ coding began with four forms of RMAs: microassault, microinsult,
microinvalidation, and environmental microaggression (Sue, 2010b). Predetermined
themes included alien in own land (Sue, Bucceri, et al., 2007), overt and intentional racial
remarks, stereotypes, and assumptions based on race. Additionally, we expected new
themes or codes to emerge. Therefore, researchers coded for any reference regarding
international students to capture emergent patterns. This includes certain words that were
repeated in students’ stories such as “international,” “mistaken,” “lumped,” “go back,”
China/India/Asia/country, “language,” “English,” and “accent.”
Researchers collaborated to identify and develop themes from data and to establish and
corroborate final themes. One pattern that emerged was that Asian American students
experienced RMAs while being repeatedly mistaken for international students and for
being Asian American. To compare themes and forms of RMAs, seven themes were divided
into two groups: (a) mistaken identification as international students, and (b) RMAs
targeting Asian American students. Table 2 presents groups, themes, definitions, and the
relation of themes to RMA categories.
Figure 2. Racial microaggressions (RMAs) that target international students and Asian American
students.
Findings
Regarding students’ lived experiences with RMAs based on their Asian American identity
and their mistaken Asian international identity, seven themes emerged. In the mistaken
identification group, four themes emerged: (a) xenophobia; (b) mockery of English
accents/Asian languages and ascription of intelligence; (c) overt, direct, and intentional
expressions; and (d) being alienated in their own land. RMA themes targeting the
Asian American students include (e) stereotypes, (f ) homogenization, and (g) monolithic
categorization of Asian American and Asian international students. Counter-stories of
Asian American students respond to the research questions with rich data about how
Asian international students are racialized; their experiences with episodic events of White
50 Yeo et al.
normative messages and practices; racial stereotypes; racial slurs; disdainful remarks;
and hostile behaviors when classmates, professors, and administrators mistook them
for Asian international students. All themes were linked to one or more forms of RMAs
(microassault, microinsult, microinvalidation, or environmental microaggression).
Mistaken Identification as International Student

Asian American students frequently reported being mistaken for international students
and hearing or experiencing hostile remarks and racial slurs intended for Asian
international students. Asian American students reported talking to Asian international
students about their experiences and learning that both were ridiculed and harassed
based on their physical features or the way they spoke. The EYES theory informs us
that such disdainful comments from White domestic students are derived from historical
and sociocultural racism embedded in U.S. social and cultural practices with respect to
Asian Americans (Chou & Feagin, 2015; Yeo et al., 2018)). As a result, the Asian American
students surveyed reported feeling uncomfortable and even fearful about being mistaken
for international students. Amy, a female Asian American student, remarked that “I feel
uncomfortable about being mistaken as an international student because I have heard the
unpleasant things people say about them.”
Theme 1: Xenophobia
Xenophobia is a type of racism practiced by people of the same population group toward
people with dissimilarities in nationality, ethnicity, language, dress, customs, social and
territorial origins, speech patterns, and accents (Kenneth, 2011). The most common
xenophobic comments revealed by the students are “Asian invasion,” “Asian flush,” “too
many Asians,” “too many international students,” “Go back to Asia,” or “Go back to [your
country, such as India or China].” Asian American students reported encountering groups
of students who used such racial slurs mistaking them to be a group of international
students. Kim, a female Asian American student, wrote: “Most people on campus have
a negative connotation towards Asians and express distaste for international students.”
Elaine similarly reported hearing someone say, “There are too many Asians on campus.
We don’t need more.” These statements expose the unwelcoming campus climate
toward Asian international students. Ultimately, what the students construed from these
comments is that Asian students and Asian international students do not belong on
campus. The hostility faced by students speaks to the first tenet of EYES theory about
the cataclysmic transitions they must endure on predominantly White campuses (Yeo et
al., 2018).
Another xenophobic statement frequently reported in the data was that White domestic
students believe that international students and foreigners “take jobs away.” For example,
Daniel reported, “Some people have suggested that I do not belong at the U of I because
they unfairly group me with the international students who have ‘taken’ their jobs or places
in graduate schools.” To avoid this unpleasant reaction toward international students,
some Asian American students such as Anil (male) reported making public their U.S.
citizenship to their White peers.
Being of South Asian descent, people, especially in the college [name],

assume I am an international student here to take jobs away from the
United States. Every time, in almost all my classes that require group
work, I need to let them know that in fact I am an American and I live
here in the United States.
Such White student statements reveal a belief that jobs in the United States are supposed
to be for Whites or citizens and not individuals from other countries.
In addition to issues around jobs, domestic White students demonstrate discontent
with their grade point average and “grading” practices by saying that Asian international
students and Asian American students ruin the grading curve because they are “good
at math,” which is a typical stereotype heard by Asian American students. Eric, a male
student, stated, “A student in my [redacted] class was complaining that Asians are ruining
the curve because we were apparently good at math.” Michelle, a female student, reported,
“They say Asians should go back to China and stop taking all the jobs here and ruining the
curve.” Anna, another female, discussed intelligence and language stereotypes: “Many
people associate all Asians as international students who do not belong on this campus
because they alter the curve and cannot speak English properly.”
Such xenophobic statements from White domestic students reflect prejudicial attitudes
toward international Asians. Such attitudes are rooted in U.S. history and structural
racism. The EYES theory provides a lens to critically examine this fear expressed by
White domestic students about losing status in the job market and in higher education
(Yeo et al., 2018). Though they do not necessarily feel they are the targets of xenophobic
statements, Asian American students described feeling uncomfortable when witnessing
Asian international students being treated unfairly and being targets of RMAs. Asian
American students understood that international students were regularly assaulted by
xenophobic statements and ridiculed about their English accents and physical features.
However, most Asian American students felt that it was unfair to be mistaken for
international students.
Theme 2: English Accents, Asian Language Mockery, and Intelligence Ascription

Asian American students recounted witnessing Asian international students experiencing
overt racism and RMAs in the classroom based on their race, foreign names, and
English accents. Racial microaggressive behaviors aimed at Asian international students
included mocking and imitating English accents and imitating Asian language sounds
and intonation—for example, hearing White students say “ching chong.”Asian American
students with green cards said they were more likely to be treated as international students
because of such things as their English accent, English proficiency, or Asian appearance.
A male Asian American student named Jin reported feeling anxious when witnessing
international students being treated unfairly or being targets of RMAs. He observed
group members mock a female Asian international student’s English accent once he left
the room. Asian American students also reported that domestic White students judged
international students’ English proficiency and intelligence based on their appearance
and names.In many cases, Asian American students concluded that White students believe
52 Yeo et al.
Asian international students are not capable of learning and teaching at UIUC. This deficit
view of Asian students’ language proficiency can be predicted using the EYES theory
because of the power imbalances between the two racial groups (Yeo et al., 2018).
These racialized beliefs about learning and teaching often play out in the form of
microassaults and microinsults when Asian international students serve as teaching
assistants (TAs). One Asian American student mentioned that a White male student
directly questioned a professor whether the international TAs could speak English. This
occurred in front of the entire class just after the professor introduced the TAs at
the beginning of the semester. Another Asian American female student, named Jane,
described observing an international student TA’s struggle in class:
I noticed there was always a struggle for respect and control of the
classroom in classes with a high proportion of undergrads. The class’s
disdain of the TA [from Taiwan] made me really uncomfortable because I
felt that it also translated into a judgment of me as a member of the same
race—as one who doesn’t belong.
Jane directly connected the TA’s struggles for control in class to messages that she was
receiving about her own sense of belonging on a predominantly White campus.
Asian American students also reported that faculty, academic advisors, counselors,
and staff (in and out of the classroom) exhibited condescending attitudes toward Asian
international students. This finding is consistent with Hanassab’s (2006) research
that international students experienced discrimination when interacting with professors
and university staff. A female Asian student, Mya, shared her experience: “One
of my professors made a comment about international students and the way they
speak [and] understand English which I found rather insulting.” Due to such hostile
climates based on English language proficiency, many Asian American students tried
to prove their citizenship by exaggeratedly speaking well-formed English. This similar
behavioral pattern was revealed in Kwon, Hernadez, and Moga’s (2017) study. They found
Asian American students explicitly distinguish themselves from the foreignness of Asian
international students by reinforcing English as the standard for inclusiveness.
In addition to reports of mockery toward Asian American and international students’
English accents, many Asian American students recalled incidents of mockery and hatred
toward Asian languages and culture. The incidents involved conflating, or “lumping
together,” the nuances between distinct languages, making general remarks about Asian
languages and pronunciations, speaking random Chinese-sounding words as “pidjin,” and
insulting Asian foods.
Asian American students’ narratives in this theme embody how domestic students
denigrate international students’ languages, cultures, or foreign status in subversive and
harmful ways through microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations.
Theme 3: Overt Expressions of Microassaults Toward Asian Americans and Asian

International Students
Many Asian American students reported overt forms of racial microaggressive behaviors or
microassaults in the form of xenophobic remarks around their race and culture, including
their hair, skin color, food, and fashion sense (see also English accent, above). Anna
reported that “Many people believe all Asians are international students on campus. As
a result, many people make fun of Asian people for their English, fashion sense, and
physical features.” Here, EYES theory gives us access to White students’ gaze and its related
assignment of value and beauty to speech, clothes, and facial features.
Similarly, an Asian male student noted, “Occasionally in interactions with peers, I
would hear others mock international students, particularly ones from Asia. They would
make comments stating how Asian international students were fresh off the boat, hard
to comprehend, and weird.” Many other Asian American students told of hearing the
phrase “fresh off the boat.” Asian American students reported that racial slurs targeting
Asian international students tended to be similar to those encountered by Asian American
students. This is also true regarding racial prejudices and model minority stereotypes
about Asians being “smart” and “good at math.” However, students report that along with
these stereotypes they have also heard negative beliefs about Asian students in general. An
Asian American male student named Ben explained:
The [name] school has a strong Asian minority presence, whether it

be Asian Americans or international students. Not so subtly, people
notice and comment on how the Asian students are hardworking/study
too hard. The general stereotype of they are greedy, self-absorbed,
monopolizing on the majors that perform well attitude. In my opinion,
this isn’t really an incident, but more of a pervading attitude.
Other overt actions and microassaults occurred in social settings. A female Asian American
student reported that Asian international students were a major topic of disagreement
during deliberations in the recruitment process for her student organization. She felt
frustrated with others who questioned how well Asian international students would “fit
in” and what they might contribute to the organization. The EYES theory predicts
these students will have trouble integrating socially because of explicit and implicit
discrimination that marginalizes non-white and perceived non-U.S. students (Yeo et al.,
2018).
Asian American students observed that Asian students in general are not welcome
when trying to join sororities or fraternities or when attending social events. Reportedly,
White students challenged Asian American and Asian international students by asking:
“Where do you think you’re going?” “I don’t think you were invited,” or “What [were] all
these Asians doing here?” Many Asian American students described their experiences
with direct insults and intentional racial slurs. The language included “Fu**ing [or stupid]
Asian,” “These damn ch**ks,” “smelly/dirty Indian,” and “terrorist,” among others. These
overtly hurtful words and behaviors are used by White students to defend White spaces
(Harwood, Lee, Riopelle, & Mendenhall, 2018). As the data suggest, such biased negative
perceptions rooted in U.S. racist culture toward Asian American students are also aligned
with negative perceptions toward Asian international students. According to the EYES
theory, these negative racial filters create cultural and physical borders that continue to
segregate students along racial lines (Yeo et al., 2018).
54 Yeo et al.
Theme 4: Being Alienated in Their Own Land

Consistent with Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, and Torino’s (2007) study, Asian American
students in this data were frequently treated as international students or foreigners. This
finding revealed disregard for their American citizenship. For instance, Asian Americans
of all ethnicities (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Indian, and Vietnamese) encountered expressions
such as “Where are you really from?” “Where were you born?” “You speak good English,”
or “You talk just like us.” Students reported that such statements made them feel that they
do not belong on campus and that they are not “real” Americans because they are not
White or Caucasian. One female student named Sook reflected, “They would emphasize
my foreignness—often in a good way but that makes me feel like I’m not American ... but
I am a citizen and also have a strong identity of being Asian American, not just Korean.”
Sook’s statement confirms that RMAs are sometimes delivered by “well-intentioned” White
Americans. Such students are often unaware of their false beliefs, misguided intentions, or
their racial biases and prejudices about people of color (DeVos & Banaji, 2005; Sue, 2010b;
Sue, Bucceri, et al., 2007).
In addition, Asian American students encountered xenophobic behaviors and
comments on campus (see Theme 1) that involved defending the United States as a
White country where they did not belong because of their assumed Asian international
student status. Students in the data encountered a type of sonic warfare. They described
hearing, for example, “This is America, go back to your country,” or “This country is
not for terrorists.” White students racially assaulted Asian students born in the United
States, and it follows logically that Asian international students also face xenophobic
RMAs. Domestic White students perceive and treat Asian American students and Asian
international students through racial lenses and biases that involve alienation associated
with race and English accent, which is complicated by mistaken nationality and targeting
Asian international students on campus. This white gaze and the patrolling of cultural and
physical borders is captured in the second tenet of EYES theory about the U.S. racialized
campus climate.
RMAs Targeting Asian American Students

Building on the mistaken-identity RMA, this section adds examples of other RMAs against
Asian American students. We assume that these microaggressions targeted toward Asian
American students are also often experienced by Asian international students (mistaken
identity in the other direction).
Theme 5: Stereotypes/Assumptions Based on Race

Asian American students reported that they experienced stereotypical beliefs and
statements about their intelligence, such as “Of course you’re smart, you’re Asian”;
“I bet you get really good grades”; or “Oh, I thought Asians were supposed to be
good at this stuff.” Some Asian American students perceived statements as positive
compliments. However, most of them felt both pressured and insulted at being judged
through stereotypes. Asian American students recognized abusive behaviors when non-
Asian domestic students invited them to math- or science-related group projects or tried
to copy their exams. A male student named Feng explained,
People usually ask me for help in mathematics or sciences. Then if I get

their question wrong, they get mad at me and say, “Aren’t you supposed
to be good?” I felt like I was a disappointment to this premade stereotype
they had of me.
Students reported feeling as though they had to conform to others’ stereotypical

expectations about them that invalidated their individuality. EYES theory can inform us
about the role of filters in influencing how some groups may be viewed as superior or
inferior. Our data show that the majority of Asian American students resent the valuing
associated with these filters because it flattens their humanity (Yeo et al., 2018).
It is significant to recognize that describing Asian Americans as high achievers and
model minorities is a part of a White-named and White-framed perspective (Chou &
Feagin, 2015). Societal atmosphere and culture accept racialized stereotypical comments
in everyday discourse as compliments, good humor, or jokes. This is fundamentally
problematic because it invalidates recipients’ feelings and experiential realities of RMAs.
For example, Daniel describes how jokes are not always just jokes:
When my non-Asian friends and I talk about school, I feel insulted

when they assume and make general comments that all Asian people are
“good at math,” “cannot play sports,” “seclude themselves in libraries,”
or any other stereotypes. The comment is usually made in good humor,
but that’s what insults me—that stereotypes are jokes, and not taken
seriously.
As Daniel indicates, stereotypes based on misconceptions of relationships between race

and intelligence are harmful to Asian American and Asian international students. Students
reported an ascription of unintelligence to international students whose first language
is not English while at the same time an ascription of greater intelligence in math and
sciences (particularly for Asian international students). This ascribed greater intelligence
also comes with an added burden. Asian American students cannot make any mistakes.
Such ascriptions of (un)intelligence were identified in Kim and Kim’s conceptualization
(2010) and Houshmand et al.’s (2014) study. EYES theory can help us to think about how
these contradictions set Asian American students up for a cataclysmic transition during
their first year of schooling at predominantly white institutions (PWIs; Yeo et al., 2018).
Theme 6: Homogenization
Most Asian American students in the survey did not find that “Asian American” equates to
“American” in the mind of many White students, and Asian American students struggled
with how others equated American with being White. Such Whiteness culture and
practices were evident at the level of student interaction and socialization (Kwon et al.,
2017). Besides being called the model minority, Asian American students described
the social pressures from their White peers to behave similarly to them, to become
56 Yeo et al.
Americanized and assimilate into White dominant culture. Bryan, a male student said
that “people complain about the large number of ‘Asians’ (referring in large part to
international students) whose English skills and social skills may not be up to par with
social norms.” These subtextual negative messages about Asian languages, English
accents, social skills, and cultures elevate Whiteness as an essential element of America
society. Such normative Whiteness is an example of systemic and socially and politically
constructed environmental microaggressions. Asian American students report fighting
against this perspective that only Whites are real Americans. This limiting belief expressed
by White students invalidates racial/ethnical experiences and cultural differences. An
Asian male student named Jason recalled that:
I have been called “un-American” as I have a less “American” background

... Roommates made numerous jokes along the lines of implying that I
should go back to my “home” country if I don’t like the “American” way of
thinking . . . Roommates often put peer pressure on me saying that these
are just “jokes” and they don’t mean it and that I shouldn’t have to feel
offended by it.
These jokes reflect normative Whiteness campus culture and RMAs committed by White
peers of Asian American students who do not take responsibility for the detrimental
impacts of their actions and remarks. According to Sue (2010b) and Solórzano et al.’s (2000)
study, cumulative effects of RMAs perpetrated by “normal, ordinary, and decent people
who believe in liberty and the pursuit of justice” can be devastating but often overlooked.
Theme 7: Monolithic Categorization of Asian American and Asian International

Students
Asian American students reported frustration when their White peers engaged in
monolithic categorizing. These microinvalidations and environmental microaggressions
betray diverse cultures and ethnicities prevalent among Asian American and Asian
international students and, according to students, were generally phrased as “All Asians
are the same.” An Asian American female named Ming stated, “[Due to their] thinking
that we are one and the same despite our various cultural differences, some Caucasian
male came up and basically stated that all Asians are the same.” Another student (Lily)
stated, “I’ve had numerous experiences where White guys would just say stuff to me and
my friends in Chinese assuming that every Asian is Chinese.” Raj stated the following: “I’ve
been jokingly accused of being a terrorist multiple times because of my skin color.”
These monolithic categorizing statements demonstrate how heterogeneity among
Asian American and Asian international students is often difficult for White domestic
students to perceive and understand. RMAs occurring at the environmental and systemic
levels are generally invisible by privileged groups but quite noticeable to minoritized
groups such as domestic students of color and international students. Some PWIs enroll
international students from over 170 countries who represent a plethora of races and
ethnicities. The U.S. categorization systems, and those socialized by them, often fail to
acknowledge racial, national, and cultural diversity among international students. For
example, Asian international students have only one available category to check on legal
documents: “Asian.” The limits of this large monolithic category are addressed with EYES
theory, which seeks to center race and racism in the U.S. context compared to other
geographical areas (Yeo et al., 2018).
Discussion
This study expands the literature on Asian international students’ unheard stories of overt
racism, microaggressions, and unfair treatment by drawing from Asian American students’
historical, social, and racialized counter-narratives and stories to provide insight into the
racialized experiences of Asian international students. Asian international students may
not fully grasp U.S. historical and sociocultural meanings of race, Asian racial identity, or
color consciousness prior to arriving in this country (Fries-Britt, George Mwangi, & Peralta,
2014; Lewis, 2016; Mitchell, Steele, Marie, & Timm, 2017). However, extended residency in
the United States creates a greater likelihood that Asian international students will perceive
and experience U.S. racism (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). In contrast, Asian American students,
born and living in U.S. society, more easily recognize racial tones and RMAs that target
Asian international students because they are often mistaken for international students
or foreigners (Chou & Feagin, 2015; Sue, Bucceri, et al., 2007). Their stories illustrate
harmful racial climates on campus and their consequences for Asian American and Asian
Asian American students’ counter-stories demonstrate that Asian international
students are racialized by skin color, English proficiency, and nationality. Racialization
practices are based on U.S. racist framings of Asian Americans. Identifying race, based
on phenotypical characteristics and language-accent mockery, is linked to racial framing
and societal discriminating behaviors toward racialized “others” (Chou & Feagin, 2015;
Omi & Winant, 2015). Moreover, racialized experiences of international students are
complex and intertwined with other factors, including nationality, home county status in
the global market, economic class, religion, and English proficiency. Findings demonstrate
that domestic students, mostly White in our data, view Asian American students and
Asian international students through a sometimes (un)conscious racialized lens. Many
examples exist where RMAs against Asian international students were conscious and
negatively projected onto Asian American students as a form of mistaken identity. The
survey responses provided countless examples of stereotypes, such as a “model minority
alienated by one’s own country” (Sue, Bucceri, et al., 2007). As a result, Asian international
students and Asian American students experience similar types of racial microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidations.
Specifically, both student groups experienced intentional verbal or nonverbal direct
attacks: being ridiculed for their English accents and xenophobic bigotry (microassault).
They also experienced subtle slights, insensitivity, or rudeness that demeans Asian identity
and heritage (microinsults). Asian American students’ feelings and racial experiences
were often nullified and their racial and cultural diversity negated (microinvalidations
and environmental microaggressions). Model minority myths and stereotypes were
evident and students described them as insulting (microinsults and environmental
microaggressions). In addition, we (authors) perceive specific forms of RMAs occurring
within the environmental microaggressions contexts such as pervasive Whiteness culture
58 Yeo et al.
and lack of legal, financial, social, and culturally relevant resources and supports for
international students on campus.
For example, our findings demonstrate that White domestic students view themselves
as true “Americans” and reify sociocultural pressures that enforce homogenization in
higher education. DiAngelo’s (2006) research affirms unspoken, unmarked classroom
norms and behavioral patterns of Whiteness and White privilege in college classrooms.
Further, racial segregation, particularly Asian international students’ segregation, is often
justified by the pervasive colorblind racism and normative Whiteness on campus. For
example, Asian international self-segregation was regarded as the result of international
students’ lack of action for engagement and lower English language proficiency (Kwon et
al., 2017), rather than as a part of the racialized campus climate issues with Whiteness.
Moreover, there is a lack of policies, practices, and resources to help international
students navigate a complex racism and racial campus climate issues. Indeed, Whiteness
culture in U.S. higher education systems harms quality of learning opportunities for
Asian international students (DiAngelo, 2006). Whiteness and White privilege bolster
advantageous social positions for White students at the expense of Asian American and
Asian international students.
Unique racial challenges of international students are disturbingly “invisible” in racial
diversity and racial discourses on campus communities (Bradley, 2000)—in part because
these students are “seen” as a source of financial revenue. These students are structurally
situated at intersecting disadvantages in terms of power relations that include academic
and social interactions between second-language speakers and native speakers and social
status between foreigners and U.S. citizens. Responsibilities for adjustment are often
treated as an individual-level problem to be addressed by international students and
with their own resources; the result is a lack of policy and resources for international
students (environmental microaggressions). In addition, Asian international students
often mistakenly explain discrimination as though they are implicitly responsible. Such
a deficit perspective and practices of normative Whiteness by students, faculty, and
administrators toward Asian international students in the sample manifested as both overt
racism and RMAs.
The findings are consistent with current research, including Houshmand et al.’s (2014)
theme, “ridiculed for accent”; Lee and Rice’s (2007) theme, “cultural discrimination”; and
Kim and Kim’s (2010) theme, “pathologizing cultural values/communication styles.” This
study confirms that Asian international students are not immune to U.S. racial bias and
prejudice. As EYES theory (Yeo et al., 2018) proposed, the racialized campus climates
and the U.S. racial framing influence Asian international students’ college experience
and create a gaze that renders students in our sample as one monolithic group. Some
experiences appear to be similar to Asian American students’ racial experiences; some are
dissimilar, because of unequal relationships of power and unique challenges international
students face. These experiences create stress for Asian students and shed light on one
of the key tenets of EYES theory, a cataclysmic transition to a PWI context that includes
unexpected marginalization (Yeo et al., 2018).
Students in the data recognized a need to manage unique challenges that confront them
on account of racial discrimination and language (i.e., English proficiency and accent),
culture, (foreign) name, and international student status at UIUC. Factors of influence
are intersectional and intertwined with other factors linked to nationality, political and
economic relationships between international students’ home country and the United
States, home country status in the global market, English proficiency, religion, gender, and
race/ethnicity. This study recognizes a need for thorough intersectional microaggression
research. Studies need to address the overlooked and complex relationships among U.S.
terrains of racial meanings and taxonomies, and the role those relationships play in
international students’ marginalization on U.S. campuses.
This study highlights the importance of increasing campus discourse and awareness
of RMAs that target Asian international students. Institutions should address racial
campus climate with educators, administrators, (career) counselors, and students. This
study also suggests the need for a dramatic shift in educators’ and administrators’ views
about international students’ racialized experiences. Resources are needed for curriculum
development, student services, and the creation of institutional training and policies that
discourage overt racism and RMAs. As one Asian American student (Amy) stated, the
lack of understanding about different cultures and countries “makes me feel like I am
unwanted and an eyesore.”
To create an inclusive campus learning environments where students do not feel
“unwanted,” educational leaders, policy makers, faculty, staff, and students must
work together to create a supportive and inclusive learning environment. Difficult
conversations should occur regularly. The focus should include students’ differences (race,
class, ability status, etc.) and what these intersecting differences mean for the services
required to adequately support a multiracial campus.
Limitations and Future Research Directions

These study findings contribute to existing literature on RMAs and international students,
but they also have limitations. Microaggression themes regarding Asian international
students were taken from stories provided by Asian American students who were
repeatedly mistaken for Asian international students. Previous research supports the
credibility of these findings (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014), but to precisely verify
international students’ racial experiences, future research should include large Asian
international student populations in their samples. In addition, we were unable to
discern whether RMAs differ by race/ethnicity, nationality, religion, and gender of Asian
international students. For example, experiences of RMAs between students from East
Asia and students from South Asia may differ. Considering the complexity and diversity of
international student population and aspects of RMAs, future research should thoroughly
examine intersecting identities on international students’ experiences with RMAs.
Further, RMAs and international students’ experiences in U.S. higher institutions
remain underresearched and undertheorized. International students come from societies
with different social concepts of race or with no racial concept. They learn race concepts
in diverse ways, and their racial prejudice influences choices of roommates and romantic
relationships (Ritter, 2016). Thus, it is important to examine what notions of race, racial
hierarchy, and racial stereotypes or bias international students have had based on their
home country’s contexts.
60 Yeo et al.
The RMAs are spatial practices that shape the experiences of students of color and
international students as they move through space (Harwood et al., 2018). Thus, greater
empirical research should be performed to investigate racial climates on and off campus,
and racial campus climates in larger/smaller cities and rural areas. The different effects of
social, cultural, political, and economic contexts on RMAs targeting international students
should be examined. In addition, these data were derived from one 4-year institution.
Thus, future research should examine whether these findings are transferable to Asian
international students on different campuses, including 2-year institutions in the United
States. Under the current U.S. administration, campus racial climates have become more
challenging for international students (Chan, 2017). Consequently, international students’
racialization process and experience of RMAs may be more apparent to them and others
now.
Conclusions
This paper contributes to literature on international students’ lived experiences with overt
racism and RMAs. The theoretical framework delineates how Asian international students
are racialized, and it aims to disrupt false beliefs and racial bias about Asian international
students as a mechanism for creating inclusive learning environments. We argue that
international students’ racial experiences should not be isolated from discourse about the
sense of belonging that other students of color at predominantly White universities have.
International students are, often subconsciously, accustomed to attitudes that elevate
Whiteness and to practices whereby Whites racialize others, especially in predominantly
or traditionally White institutions. What is troubling is that most international students
return to their home countries or work abroad, having experienced a lack of campus-
wide supportive resources and racial experiences. Moreover, they might develop negative
biases and prejudices about African Americans or Latinos/as based on their socialization
by the larger U.S. society (e.g., media). Many international students become global
leaders. We do not want them believing that “they must accept discrimination as the
cost of earning an American degree” (Lee, 2007, p. 29). Nor do we want them to have
negative feelings about the United States and higher education in the United States.
Consequently, it is recommended that researchers, educators, and administrators invest in
interventions, including resources for RMA training, workshops on race on U.S. campuses,
and addressing students’ complex needs.
Since the internationalization and globalization of U.S. higher education will continue,
it is important to create inclusive campus climates and increase discourses and practices
for understanding diverse global racial and ethnic groups. These investments will foster
the development of physical and intellectual safe spaces for international students and
decrease the occurrence of microaggressions. Arguably, offering secure and supportive
learning environments for students is beneficial on a global scale.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the
top destination for foreign students? volume 36. Change: The.
Bevis, T. B. (2002). At a glance: International students in the United States. International

Educator, 11(3), 12–17.
Bevis, T. B. & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International students in American colleges and
universities: A history. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in America. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Bordoloi, S. (2014). On being brown and foreign: The racialization of an international
student within academia. Sociological Imagination, 50(3), 50–66.
Bradley, G. (2000). Responding effectively to the mental health needs of international
students. Higher Education, 39, 417–433.
Chan, A. (2017). Report on the post-US Election impact on academic life and activity at the
University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign: University. of Illinois. Available at.
Chong, J. K. & Razek, N. A. (2014). Feeling welcome with no “buts’: Chinese student
engagement in residence life. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 18(3), 137–
149.
Chou, R. S. & Feagin, J. R. (2015). Myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing
racism. Paradigm, Boulder, CO.
Constantine, M. G., Kindaichi, M., Okazaki, S., Gainor, K. A., & Baden, A. L. (2005). A
qualitative investigation of the cultural adjustment experience of Asian international
college women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 162–175.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
DeCuir, J. T. & Dixson, A. (2004). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it
is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education.
Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31.
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. University Press,
New York, NY: New York.
DeVos, T. & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American White? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 447–466.
DiAngelo, R. J. (2006). The production of Whiteness in education: Asian international
students in a college classroom. Teachers College Record, 108, 1983–2000.
Educational, U. N. (2015). Scientific and Cultural Organization, Institute for Statistics.
Fries-Britt, S., Mwangi, C. A. G., & Peralta, A. M. (2014). Learning race in a U.S. context: An
emergent framework on the perceptions of race among foreign-born students of color.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 1–13.
Greenblatt, S. (2005). International students and diversity in American higher education.
volume 5.
Education, 10, 157–172.
Harrison, N. & Peacock, N. (2009). Interactions in the international classroom: The UK
perspective. In Jones, E., editor, Internationalisation and the student voice, pages 125–
142, New York, NY. Routledge.
62 Yeo et al.
Harrison, N. & Peacock, N. (2010). Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive

xenophobia: Using Integrated Threat Theory to explore home higher education
students’ perspectives on “internationalisation at home.”. British Educational Research
Journal, 36, 877–902.
Harwood, S. A., Lee, S., Riopelle, C., Mendenhall, R., Huntt, M. B., & Olorode, T. (2018).
Racial microaggressions and spatial belonging: The experiences of students of color at
a predominantly white university. Annals of the American Association of Geographers,
108(5), 1245–1259.
Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2014). Excluded and avoided: Racial
microaggressions targeting Asian international students in Canada. Cultural Diversity
& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 377–388.
Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Iwamoto, D. K. & Liu, W. M. (2010). The impact of racial identity, ethnic identity, Asian
values and race-related stress on. Asian Americans and Asian international college
students’ psychological well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 79–91.
Jon, J. E. (2013). Realizing internationalization at home in Korean higher education:
Promoting domestic students’ interaction with international students and intercultural
competence. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17, 455–470.
Kenneth, T. (2011). Is xenophobia racism? Anthropology Southern Africa, 34(3&4), 114–
121.
Kim, S. & Kim, R. H. (2010). Microaggressions experienced by international students
attending U.S. institutions of higher education. In Sue, D. W., editor, Microaggressions
and marginality: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact, pages 171–191, Hoboken, NJ.
Wiley.
Kwon, S. A., Hernandez, X., & Moga, J. L. (2017). Racial segregation and the limits of
international undergraduate student diversity. Race Ethnicity and Education.
Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. I. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Lee, J. J. & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of
discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381–409.
Lewis, A. (2016). Making meaning of race and racialization in the lives of five international
graduate students. In Bista, K. & Foster, C., editors, Exploring the social and academic
experiences of international students in higher education institutions, pages 59–78,
Hershey, PA. IGI Global.
Martinot, S. (2003). The rule of racialization: Class, identity, governance. Temple University
Press, Philadelphia, PA.
McCoy, D. L. & Rodricks, D. J. (2015). Critical race theory in higher education: 20 years of
theoretical and research innovations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 41(3).
Meghani, D. & Harvey, E. (2016). Asian India international students’ trajectories of
depression, acculturation, and enculturation. Asian American Journal of Psychology,
7(1), 1–14.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Sage, Oaks,
CA.
Miles, R. (1988). Racialization. pages 246–247, London, UK. Routledge.

Mitchell, D., Steele, T., Marie, J., & Timm, K. (2017). Learning race and racism while
learning: Experiences of international students pursuing higher education in the
Midwestern United States. AERA Open, 3(3), 1–15.
Montgomery, C. & McDowell, L. (2009). Social networks and the international student
experience: An international community of practice? Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(4), 455–466.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137–144.
Mwaura, J. (2008). Non-traditional age Black African international students’ experiences:
Phenomenological heuristic inquiry. Adult Education Research.
N.A.F.S.A. (2017). International student economic value tool.
of International Education, I. (2017). Open Doors.
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to the
1990s. Routledge, New York, NY.
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States. Routledge, New York,
NY.
Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Bullington, R., & Pisecco, S. (2001). Adjustment issues of Turkish
college students in the United States. College Student Journal, 35(1), 52–62.
Poyrazli, S. & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international
students within a semi-urban campus. Community. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
34(1), 28–45.
Poyrazli, S. & Lopez, M. D. (2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and
homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. Journal
of Psychology, 141, 263–280.
Ritter, Z. S. (2016). Globalization of racism: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international
students’ racial stereotypes and experiences with cross-racial interactions. In Bista,
K. & Foster, C., editors, Exploring the social and academic experiences of international
students in higher education institutions, pages 132–155, Hershey, PA. IGI Global.
Sato, T. & Hodge, S. R. (2009). Asian international doctoral students’ experiences at
two American universities: Assimilation, accommodation, and resistance. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 136–148.
Solórzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial
stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 3, 5–19.
Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,
and campus racial climate: The experience of African American college students.
Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73.
Solórzano, D. G. & Yosso, T. J. (2002a). A critical race counter-story of race, racism, and
affirmative action. Equity and Excellence. Education, 35(2), 155–168.
Solórzano, D. G. & Yosso, T. J. (2002b). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as
an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Sue, D. W. (2010a). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and
impact. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
64 Yeo et al.
Sue, D. W. (2010b). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J. M., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007a). Racial
microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 13, 72–81.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007b). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286.
Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with
American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687.
Wong, Y. J., Tsai, P. C., Liu, T., Zhu, Q., & Wei, M. (2014). Male Asian international students’
perceived racial discrimination, masculine identity, and subjective masculinity stress: A
moderated mediation model. Journal of Counseling, 61(4), 560–569.
Yeh, C. & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support,
and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counseling Psychology
Quarterly, 16(1), 15–29.
Yeo, H. J., McKee, M., & Trent, W. (2018). EYES theory: A proposed racialization and
developmental identity model for understanding concepts of race for international
students of color studying in US higher education institutions. In Hoffman, J.,
Blessinger, P., & Makhanya, M., editors, Perspectives on diverse student identities in
higher education: International perspectives on equity and inclusion, Bingley, UK.
Emerald.
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690.
Author biography
Hye Jin Tina Yeo is in Education Policy, Organization, and Leadership at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her major research interests are motivated by
the exploration of intersectional identities for international students; specifically how
diversity, equity, racial formation, racial identities of international students contribute to
identity formation at predominantly White institutions. She also has an interest in racial
microaggressions and cultural/racial resiliency.
Ruby Mendenhall is an Associate Professor of Sociology and African American Studies

and the Assistant Dean for Diversity and Democratization of Health Innovation at the
Carle Illinois College of Medicine. Her research examines how living in racially segregated
neighborhoods with high levels of violence affects Black mothers’ mental and physical
health using surveys, interviews, crime statistics, police records, data from 911 calls,
and genomic analysis. She also employs big data to recover Black women’s lost history,
studies the use of the Earned Income Tax Credit for social mobility, and examines how
racial microaggressions affect health and sense of belonging of students of color on
predominantly White campuses.
Stacy Anne Harwood is Professor in the Department of City & Metropolitan Planning at the
University of Utah. Her major research interests include urban planning in multicultural
communities; local immigrant integration and planning; racism in everyday integrated
spaces; and cross-racial coalition building in working-class White communities.
Margaret Browne Huntt is the Assistant Director for Strategic Research Initiatives and
Chief Diversity Officer at the Cancer Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. Her research interests include issues relating to educational inequality
and race and ethnicity with a focus on social stratification and mobility, equality of
opportunity, and social and organizational change.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 66–83
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.279
ojed.org/jis
Cross-Ethnic Self-Disclosure Buffering

Negative Impacts of Prejudice on
International Students’ Psychological
and Social Well-Being
Tatsuya Imaia and Ayako Imaib
Abstract: Intergroup contact theory suggests that developing a close relationship with outgroup
members ameliorates the negative impact of prejudice that individuals perceive from outgroup
members. This article specifically investigates the moderating role of cross-ethnic self-disclosure
in the link between international students’ perceived ethnic/racial prejudice and depression as well
as loneliness. One hundred and forty-three international students in Japan were asked to rate their
perceived prejudice, depression, and loneliness as well as their self-disclosure to host nationals.
The results showed that self-disclosure buffers the negative effects of prejudice on depression and
loneliness such that international students who were more likely to disclose themselves to host
nationals were less likely to be influenced by prejudice. Theoretical and practical contributions are
considered.
Keywords: depression, loneliness, personalization model, prejudice, self-disclosure
Introduction
According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD,
2016), more than four million students were enrolled in education outside of their home
countries in 2014 and the number has been increasing every year. International students
can be defined as students who study at overseas educational institutions for specific
purposes while being socially and culturally involved in a host country. As this definition
implies, most international students not only focus on studying in a host country but
also desire to broaden their horizons through cross-cultural experiences (Kitsantas, 2004).
By accepting international students, host countries also receive tremendous benefits
economically, culturally, intellectually, and politically (Bevis, 2002; Harrison, 2002).
a Department of British and American Studies, Nanzan University, Japan.

b Nanzan University, Japan.
Corresponding author: imatatsu@nanzan-u.ac.jp

Cross-Ethnic Self-Disclosure 67
It should be noted, however, that many of the international students experience

prejudice from host nationals because of their race and ethnicity (Hanassab, 2006; Lee
& Rice, 2007; Sam, 2001). One study assessing the experiences of international students
studying in an American university showed that depending on the regions from which they
originated, up to 46% of them reported that they had experiences of prejudice (Hanassab,
2006). Such perceived prejudice is associated with poor well-being of international
students such as displaying depressive symptoms (e.g., Zhang & Goodson, 2011). However,
the negative effects of prejudice can be ameliorated if the targets of prejudice develop
cross-ethnic friendship (e.g., Benner & Wang, 2016). For example, if ethnic minorities in
the U.S. have cross-ethnic friends, the negative impacts of prejudice on their psychological
well-being were buffered (Benner & Wang, 2016).
However, what kind of interaction (i.e., communication) those cross-ethnic partners
need to engage in to alleviate the negative effects of prejudice is left unexplored. It is
critical that people who are experiencing prejudice know strategies to ward off its negative
effects. Using the personalization model developed by Brewer and Miller (1984), the
current study focuses on a specific type of communication that might play the buffering
role—self-disclosure. The personalization model argues that cross-ethnic self-disclosure
may lead to positive intergroup attitudes. However, the possibility that cross-ethnic
self-disclosure helps people alleviate the negative effects of perceived prejudice has not
been fully investigated. This study specifically hypothesizes that for those international
students who talk a lot about themselves with host nationals, the negative influence of
prejudice on their depression and loneliness would be less significant compared to those
who do not disclose information about themselves.
In the following section, the literature on situations of international students in Japan,
which is the target country in this study, will be reviewed. Next, the literature on negative
influences of prejudice that international students experience will be discussed. Then,
using the personalization model, the reasons why cross-ethnic self-disclosure may play a
buffering role in alleviating the negative impact of prejudice will be considered, followed
by specific descriptions of the current study.
Literature Review
International Students in Japan
This study focuses on Japan as a target country because it has the ninth largest population
of international students globally (Project Atlas, 2016). The number of international
students in Japan was first recorded in 1983, and it was 10,428 (Suzuki, 2011). The number
has been increasing every year and there were 267,042 international students in Japan in
2017 (Japan Student Services Organization, 2017). Most of them were from Asian countries
(93.3%) such as China and Vietnam, followed by European countries (3.2%) like France
and Germany, and the United States (1.2%). In 2008, the Japanese government adopted a
plan to increase the number of international students to 300,000 by 2020, so educational
institutions such as universities have tried to attract international students from different
countries.
68 Imai and Imai
However, previous literature found that some international students in Japan have
negative experiences such as being a target of prejudice (Imai, 2017; Iwao & Hagiwara,
1988; Maruyama, 1998; Sabetto & Sabetto, 2010). Maruyama (1998) found that some
international students in Japan reported that they were treated as foreigners who were not
welcome by Japanese people. Imai (2017) revealed that some international students were
aware that their home country and their compatriots were seen negatively by Japanese
people. Sabatto and Sabatto (2010) interviewed international students in Japan and found
that some international students had experiences of being treated unfairly due to their
ethnicity and race.
Taken together, Japan has attempted to increase the number of international students,
but it is not rare for them to be a target of prejudice. Besides the effort to increase
the number of international students, Japan should make more effort to improve their
quality of life while staying in Japan. Unfortunately, there has been little research on
how international students could deal with prejudice either in Japan or in other countries.
Thus, this study examines the roles of international students’ communication that could
ward off the negative effects of the prejudice that they experience. The next section
introduces past studies researching the association between perceived prejudice and well-
being among international students.
International Students’ Perceived Prejudice and Its Negative Effects

Past studies show that prejudice experienced by international students has been
associated with depression (e.g., Zhang & Goodson, 2011). Wei, Russell, and Zakalik
(2008) found that Asian international students in the US from China, India, Korea, Taiwan,
and Hong Kong who perceived prejudice from Americans were more likely to experience
depressive symptoms. The same association between perceived prejudice and depression
was found for international students from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh studying in the
US (Rahman & Rollock, 2004). Jung, Hecht, and Wadsworth (2007) also found the same
association between the two variables for international students in the US and further
revealed that the association was mediated by a personal-enacted identity gap, which is
defined as the difference between an individual’s self-concept and his or her expressed or
performed identity in communication.
This study attempts to extend the previous findings regarding effects of perceived
prejudice by predicting the association between perceived prejudice and loneliness.
Richman and Leary (2009) suggested that perceived prejudice is harmful to the
psychological well-being of the prejudiced because that individual feels socially excluded
by outgroup members. Such feelings of being excluded are the main factor making those
who are excluded feel lonely (de Jong Gierveld, van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2006). In the
current study, outgroup members can be defined as host nationals because they are the
ones who express prejudice against international students. For example, for an American
student studying in Japan, outgroup members refer to Japanese people who could express
prejudice against the American student. Therefore, international students who experience
prejudice from host nationals may feel excluded, leading to loneliness. Based on previous
studies on loneliness experienced by international students, Patron (2014) argued that
prejudice could be a critical barrier that prevents international students from forming
friendship with host nationals, and that may make them feel lonely. In line with this idea,
Poyrazli and Lopez (2007) found that international students who experienced prejudice
reported higher levels of homesickness, but little research has investigated the specific
relationship between perceived prejudice and loneliness. Thus, the following hypothesis
was posed:
• H1: International students’ perceived prejudice is positively associated with their
loneliness.
How could international students cope with the negative effect of prejudice? Some
theories of intergroup contact help address the question.
Intergroup Contact Theory

Intergroup contact occurs when individuals belonging to one group interact with another
group or its members (Sherif, 1966). One of the most influential theories of intergroup
contact is the contact hypothesis developed by Allport (1954), arguing that interpersonal
contact between different group members brings about positive attitudes toward a
different group. The key idea of the theory is that positive effects of intergroup contact
occur only if the following four conditions are met. First, interactants from different groups
ideally have equal status. Second, they should pursue common goals. Third, to pursue the
common goals, they should cooperate. Fourth, authority support is necessary to make the
intergroup contact positive. Based on the contact hypothesis, Pettigrew (1998) developed
intergroup contact theory (ICT) adding a fifth condition to the contact hypothesis: The
contact situation should help interactants from different groups become friends. In other
words, ICT suggests that cross-group friendships facilitate positive intergroup contact
effects. Supporting the prediction, previous studies found that people who had outgroup
friends such as those of another ethnicity and race reported a more favorable attitude
toward the outgroup (Pettigrew, 1997; Powers & Ellison, 1995). For example, participants
in France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and West Germany who had ethnic minority
friends reported lower levels of prejudice toward ethnic minorities in general than those
without such cross-ethnic friends (Pettigrew, 1997).
Integrating the theoretical accounts to the current study, it is possible for the cross-
group friendship to function as a moderator that alleviates negative impacts of prejudice
on the recipients of prejudice. Even though participants were not international students,
Benner and Wang (2016) investigated the possibility. They revealed that for racial and
ethnic American minorities without cross-ethnic friends, those who perceived greater
prejudice reported lower levels of psychological well-being. In contrast, for those who had
one or more cross-ethnic friends, they reported greater psychological well-being and there
was no significant association between perceived prejudice and psychological well-being.
That is, cross-group friendships do buffer the negative effects of perceived prejudice on
psychological well-being of the prejudiced.
However, past research has not assessed the specific forms of interaction that help
people who perceive ethnic and racial prejudice buffer the negative effect of the
experience. Benner and Wang (2016) found that having friends in different ethnic and
racial groups wards off the negative effects of prejudice. Yet, is it still effective to have
70 Imai and Imai
friends in different ethnic and racial groups if only shallow and superficial topics are
discussed? It makes more sense that having friends with whom one can openly talk is
more effective in buffering the negative influence of perceived prejudice. Therefore, this
study examines cross-ethnic self-disclosure as a moderator that might buffer the negative
effect of prejudice based on the personalization model.
The Personalization Model and Cross-Group Self-Disclosure

The personalization model was first formulated by Brewer and Miller (1984) and later
elaborated on in other literature (e.g., Ensari & Miller, 2005; Miller, 2002). Brewer and
Miller (1984) discussed three types of ingroup contact: the category-based model, the
differentiated model, and the personalization model. In the category-based model, the
group boundaries are impermeable, so the differences between two distinct groups are
salient. Thus, members in each group are seen stereotypically by outgroup members. In
the differentiated model, group members are decategorized to some extent, so differences
among each member within a group are more emphasized and group boundaries are
more permeable. In the personalization model, group membership is less important,
so differences of members within a group are clearer and similarities of members
between groups are more salient. In such personalized interaction, each member’s
perception toward the outgroup members is favorable and their anxiety toward the
outgroup members is moderated. Taken together, it is estimated that the negative impacts
of prejudice should be ameliorated if two distinct groups are related to each other in
accordance with the personalized model.
Such a personalized relation could be achieved through self-disclosure according to
the personalization model (Ensari & Miller, 2005; Miller, 2002). Self-disclosure can be
defined as any information exchange regarding the self such as the discloser’s thoughts,
feelings, and experiences (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979). Previous studies found some
empirical evidence showing that self-disclosure functions to facilitate intergroup attitudes.
Black participants who were interviewed by a White interviewer who disclosed intimate
information showed greater liking for the White interviewer compared with the one
who did not disclose intimate information (Berg & Wright-Buckley, 1988). Further,
the personalization achieved through self-disclosure is associated with a reduction of
prejudice toward outgroup members such as those with different political views (Ensari &
Miller, 2005) and those with different religious beliefs (Ensari & Miller, 2002). As described
here, previous research assumes that cross-group self-disclosure may help the recipient
of disclosure have a favorable attitude toward the outgroup that the discloser belongs to.
Miller (2002) explained that the attitude change takes place because the disclosure may
make the recipient perceive attraction (e.g., Archer, Berg, & Runge, 1980) and liking (e.g.,
Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969) toward the discloser, thus leading to the positive attitude
toward the outgroup as a whole. However, past studies of self-disclosure also imply that
such cross-group self-disclosure might make the discloser have a positive attitude toward
the outgroup that the recipient of disclosure belongs to. In line with this idea, self-
disclosure made the discloser have greater positive attitudes toward the recipient (G. R.
Adams & Sheam, 1981; Berg & Archer, 1983).
Overall, cross-group self-disclosure may help the discloser have a favorable attitude
toward the outgroup. Specifically, self-disclosure could function as a moderator buffering
the negative effects of perceived prejudice because past studies found that self-disclosure
moderates the negative effects of stress on psychological well-being (e.g., R. E. Adams &
Cantin, 2013; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). The current study investigates
the effects of self-disclosure by international students because the negative impact of
perceived ethnic/racial prejudice has been found to be significant in other studies (e.g.,
Rahman & Rollock, 2004; Wei et al., 2008). Also, international students are aware of
the salient boundaries that separate them from host nationals (Brisset, Safdar, Lewis &
Sabatier, 2010; Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003), so applying the personalization
model to the intergroup relations between international students and host nationals is
appropriate and effective.
This study focuses on depression and loneliness as consequences associated with
perceived prejudice because depression (e.g., Zhang & Goodson, 2011) and loneliness
(e.g., Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia, 2008) have been frequently assessed
to measure international students’ psychological and social well-being. Taken together,
the following hypotheses are posed:
• H2: International students’ self-disclosure to host nationals moderates the link

between international students’ perceived prejudice and depression.
• H3: International students’ self-disclosure to host nationals moderates the link
between international students’ perceived prejudice and loneliness.
Research Method
This study was approved by the institutional review board of Nanzan University for
research on human subjects. An online survey was used to assess international students in
Japan regarding their perceived prejudice, the depth of and amount of their self-disclosure
to host nationals, and their depression and loneliness.
Participants
One hundred and forty-six international students studying in Japan participated in this
study, but data from three participants were dropped because they failed to answer some
items involved in the analyses. Of the 143 participants, 54% (n = 77) were male and 46%
(n = 66) were female. Their ages ranged from 19 to 42 with the mean age at 27. Most
participants were from the United States (n = 23, 16%), followed by China (n = 20, 14%),
India (n = 12, 8%), Indonesia (n = 7, 5%), England, Korea, Singapore, Philippines (n = 6,
4%), Taiwan (n = 5, 3%), and other countries (n = 52).
Some participants joined this study through a company for which they registered
themselves as possible research participants and they received monetary incentives from
the company for their participation. The others participated in this study through
snowball sampling. That is, one of the authors personally asked international students
he knew to take part in this survey. They were also asked to introduce this survey to other
international students in Japan.
72 Imai and Imai
Measures
The questionnaire included measures examining participants’ perceived prejudice, the
depth and amount of their self-disclosure to host nationals, and their depression, and
loneliness. Study materials were available in English and Japanese. The reliabilities,
means, and standard deviations for the measures as well as correlations among the
variables are shown in Table 1. The participants’ sex and age were also asked in the
questionnaire. None of the demographic information was correlated with other variables
except for the negative correlation between age and depth of self-disclosure (r = °.18, p =
.031) and amount of self-disclosure (r = °.18, p = .036).
Table 1. Correlations among variables
Æ M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Prejudice .90 2.80 0.95 —
Depth of .81 2.94 1.02 °.12 —
self-disclosure
Amount of .75 3.34 0.81 °.18* .40** —
self-disclosure
Depression .80 1.99 0.52 .16 .34 °.05 —
Loneliness .82 2.43 0.46 .41** °.05 °.18* .42** —
*p < .05, ** p < .01.
Perceived Prejudice
Participants’ perceived prejudice was assessed using a part of Acculturative Stress Scale
for International Students developed by Sandhu and Asrabadi (1994). This original scale
has 36 items examining various aspects of international students’ acculturative stress, and
this study used eight items among them that specifically assess respondents’ perceptions
of prejudice. Example items are “Others are biased toward me” and “I am denied what I
deserve.” A 5-point Likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with
higher scores indicating more perceived prejudice. The Cronbach’s Æ was .90.
Depth and Amount of Self-Disclosure

A part of self-disclosure scale developed by Wheeless (1976) was used to investigate
the depth and amount of participants’ self-disclosure to host nationals. Depth of self-
disclosure refers to how intimately and fully people talk about themselves (Wheeless,
1976). Amount of self-disclosure refers to how long and often people talk about themselves
(Wheeless, 1976). Five items from the scale assess the depth of self-disclosure such as “I
often disclose intimate, personal things about myself without hesitation” and “Once I get
started, I intimately and fully reveal myself in my self-disclosure.” Seven items assess the
amount of self-disclosure such as “I usually talk about myself for fairly long periods at a
time” and “I often talk about myself.” A 5-point Likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more depth and amount of self-disclosure.
The Cronbach’s Æ of the depth scale was .81 and that of the amount scale was .75.
Depression
The 10-item version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D;
Radloff, 1977) was used to assess participants’ depressive symptoms. Example items are
“I felt that everything I did was an effort” and “My sleep was restless.” To assess how
frequently participants experienced each statement, a 4-point Likert scale was used (1
= rarely or none of the time, 4 = most or all of the time). Higher scores showed more
depression and the Cronbach’s Æ was .80.
Loneliness
The 10-item University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996) was used
to examine how lonely participants felt in a host country. Example items are “How often
do you feel left out?” and “How often do you feel that people are around you but not with
you?” A 4-point Likert scale was used (1 = never, 4 = always). Higher scores indicate more
loneliness. The Cronbach’s Æ was .82.
Results
As Table 1 shows, the association between perceived prejudice and depression was not
statistically significant (r = .16, p = .05), whereas prejudice was correlated with loneliness
(r = .41, p < .01).
Hypothesis 1 predicted the positive association between perceived prejudice and
loneliness. Controlling for the effect of sex and age, results of multiple regression revealed
that prejudice predicted loneliness, b = 0.21, Ø = 0.42, t = 5.48, p < .01, which is consistent
with H1.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants’ self-disclosure to host nationals moderates
the association between their perceived prejudice and depression. Specifically, for
international students who disclose themselves less, those who perceive greater prejudice
would report greater depressive symptoms. On the other hand, for international students
who disclose themselves more, the relationship between prejudice and depression would
be less significant. To test the interaction between prejudice and self-disclosure, multiple
regression was conducted. All predictors were centered to avoid high multicollinearity
involving the interaction term (Aiken & West, 1991). Sex and age that were also centered
were included in all the analyses as control variables.
To test H2, the model with predictors such as prejudice, depth of self-disclosure, and
the interaction term (prejudice £ depth of self-disclosure), and with the outcome of
depression was formed. As Table 2 shows, results showed no main effect for prejudice
(b = 0.08, Ø = 0.15, t = 1.75, p = .08) and depth of self-disclosure (b = 0.03, Ø = 0.06, t = 0.72,
p = .47). An interaction between prejudice and depth of self-disclosure was significant, b =
°1.11, Ø = °0.21, t = °2.48, p < .05.
*p < .05, ** p < .01.
74 Imai and Imai
Table 2. Regression results: Depth of self-disclosure as a predictor
Outcomes Depression Loneliness

Predictors B Ø t B Ø t
Prejudice 0.08 0.15 1.75 0.20 0.40 0.08

Depth of self-disclosure 0.03 0.06 0.72 °0.01 °0.02 0.03
Prejudice £ depth °0.11 °0.21 °2.48* °0.06 °0.13 °0.11
of self-disclosure
Interactions are presented in Figure 1, in which high self-disclosure indicates 1 SD

above the mean and low self-disclosure indicates 1 SD below the mean. Simple slope
analyses revealed that prejudice predicted depression for those who did not disclose
themselves deeply (b = 0.20, p < .01). However, prejudice did not predict depression for
those who disclosed themselves deeply (b = °0.03, p = .59). That is, depth of self-disclosure
buffered the negative effect of prejudice on depression, so the results are consistent with
H2.
Figure 1. Simple slopes of effects for depth of self-disclosure on depression
Also, the model with predictors such as prejudice, amount of self-disclosure and the
interaction term (prejudice £ amount of self-disclosure), and the outcome of depression
was formed. As Table 3 shows, results showed that none of the variables predicted
depression, so the results are not consistent with H2.
To test H3, the model with predictors such as prejudice, depth of self-disclosure, and
the interaction term (prejudice £ depth of self-disclosure), and the outcome of loneliness
was formed. As Table 2 shows, results showed that there was non-significant interaction
effect (b = °0.06, Ø = °0.13, t = °1.71, p = .09). Thus, the results are not consistent with H3.
Table 3. Regression results: Amount of self-disclosure as a predictor
Outcomes Depression Loneliness

Predictors B Ø t B Ø t
Prejudice 0.09 0.16 1.86 0.19 0.39 5.08**
Amount of self-disclosure 0.01 0.02 0.17 °0.06 °0.10 °1.22
Prejudice £ amount °0.08 °0.13 °1.41 °0.10 °0.16 °2.02*
of self-disclosure
*p < .05, ** p < .01.

Further, another model with predictors such as prejudice, amount of self-disclosure
and the interaction term (prejudice £ amount of self-disclosure), and with the outcome
of loneliness was formed. As Table 3 shows, results showed a main effect for prejudice (b
= 0.19, Ø = 0.39, t = 5.08, p < .01). There was a non-significant main effect for amount of
self-disclosure (b = °0.06, Ø = °0.10, t = °0.87, p = .22). An interaction between prejudice
and amount of self-disclosure was significant, b = °0.10, Ø = °0.16, t = °2.02, p < .05.
Interactions are presented in Figure 2, in which high self-disclosure indicates 1 SD above
the mean and low self-disclosure indicates 1 SD below the mean. Simple slope analyses
revealed that for both those who disclosed more and less about themselves, prejudice
predicted loneliness. However, the effect for low self-disclosure (b = 0.27, p < .01) was
more significant than that for high self-disclosure (b = 0.11, p < .05). Thus, amount of
self-disclosure buffered the negative effects of prejudice on loneliness, so the results are
consistent with H3.
Figure 2. Simple slopes of effects for amount of self-disclosure on loneliness

76 Imai and Imai
Discussion
While studying abroad provides students with many opportunities to mature and gain life
experience, they often face difficulties of prejudice from host nationals. Past research
indicates that developing a close relationship with cross-ethnic people may buffer the
negative effect of prejudice on the well-being of those experiencing prejudice (Benner
& Wang, 2016). However, there is little research on the specific type of communication
people from different groups should engage in to prevent perceived prejudice from
damaging them. Therefore, this study specifically investigates the buffering role of cross-
ethnic self-disclosure ameliorating the negative impact of prejudice on international
students’ psychological and social well-being. Results revealed that while depth of self-
disclosure by international students toward host nationals buffered the negative effects
of prejudice on their depression, amount of self-disclosure buffered the negative effect of
prejudice on their loneliness. The different buffering roles between depth and amount of
self-disclosure will be discussed in the following section.
Depressive symptoms of international students have been considered a serious issue
in previous research (for a review, see Zhang & Goodson, 2011). However, how
international students can deal with the symptoms through communication has not
been fully examined. One of the contributions of this study is that the findings indicate
the possibility that international students who feel depressed due to their experience
of being prejudiced against may gain benefit from disclosing themselves deeply to host
nationals. The effectiveness of deep self-disclosure reducing depressive symptoms has
been found in previous studies. Gortner, Rude, and Pennebaker (2006) found that college
students who disclosed their deepest thoughts and feelings on current and past emotional
upheavals through writing reported lower depressive symptoms than those who wrote
about their time management in a control condition. In the study conducted by Lepore
(1997), participants who wrote their deepest thoughts and feelings about important
exams they have to take showed a significant decline in depressive symptoms. Similarly,
participants who wrote about their traumatic experiences exhibited a significant reduction
in depressive symptoms than those who did not (Sloan, Marx, & Epstein, 2005).
Further, in the area of psychotherapy, deep self-disclosure is considered effective in
reducing a negative affect such as depression. Farber (2006) argued that psychiatric
patients’ deep self-disclosure to a therapist facilitates a therapeutic process. One of the
reasons for the positive effect of deep self-disclosure is that the self-disclosure might help
the patients gain greater insight into themselves and gain a more cohesive sense of self.
Theoretically, perceived prejudice damages self-concept and self-esteem (Allport, 1954).
Taken together, deep self-disclosure buffers the negative impact of perceived prejudice on
international students’ depression probably because disclosing their deep thoughts and
feelings to host nationals may allow them to repair their damaged identity by believing that
their identity is validated by the host nationals even though they experience prejudice. On
the other hand, international students’ deep self-disclosure did not alleviate the negative
effect of prejudice on their loneliness. Reviewing past studies on self-disclosure, Bochner
(1982) concluded that disclosing information that is too personal about oneself may not
elicit liking from the recipient of disclosure. For example, Chaikin and Derlega (1974)
found that intimate disclosure to an acquaintance was perceived to be less appropriate

and more maladjusted than nondisclosure.
According to the results of the current study, what buffers the negative effect of
prejudice on international students’ loneliness is the amount of their self-disclosure to
host nationals. Previous research suggests loneliness is one of the most serious issues of
international students’ social adjustment (Sawir et al., 2008). However, how international
students overcome this difficulty through communication has not been fully researched.
The results of this study indicate that if international students who feel lonely because of
their experience of being prejudiced against could disclose themselves to host nationals,
they could ward off the negative effect of prejudice on loneliness. Related to the results,
a study conducted by Leung (2002) specifically revealed that participants’ perceived
loneliness was negatively associated with amount of their self-disclosure to others, but
not with depth of their self-disclosure. Why is the amount rather than the depth of self-
disclosure effective in alleviating loneliness caused by prejudice? Past studies indicate
that those who are prejudiced against feel socially excluded and the experience may make
the recipient of prejudice lonely (de Jong Gierveld et al., 2006; Richman & Leary, 2009).
Therefore, to alleviate the negative impact of prejudice on loneliness, communication that
allows the communicator to be involved with outgroup members without being rejected
is necessary. A certain amount of self-disclosure without disclosing highly personal
information would serve a role in helping the discloser build a relationship with the
outgroup members (Bochner, 1982; Chaikin & Derlega, 1974).
Another line of research on social capital shows that such light self-disclosure helps
the discloser develop weak ties with others called “bridging social capital” (Parks, 1981;
Putnam, 2000). While features of bonding social capital (i.e., strong ties) include
emotionally close relationships such as close friends, those of bridging social capital (i.e.,
weak ties) include loose interpersonal connections among individuals who provide useful
information or ideas with each other (Putman, 2000). Putman argues that bridging social
capital rather than the bonding social capital is more typical when people from diverse
social groups build relationships with each other. Considering various differences between
international students and host nationals in values, beliefs, and customs, it is natural for
international students to develop bridging social capital in order to prevent themselves
from feeling lonely. Bian and Leung (2014) found such a negative correlation between
bridging social capital and loneliness. To develop bridging social capital, international
students’ light self-disclosure (such as talking about their basic information without
disclosing information that is too intimate) might be effective. These theoretical ideas may
account for the findings of this study showing the amount of self-disclosure buffering the
negative effect of prejudice on international students’ loneliness.
Limitations and Future Directions

As for the first limitation, this study did not measure the content that participants talked
about to host nationals. Specifically, this study assessed how much and how deeply
international students talked about themselves, but it is still unclear what they shared with
host nationals. The relevant, important question arises: Should international students
talk about the experience of prejudice to host nationals? Past studies examining the effect
78 Imai and Imai
of self-disclosure on the discloser’s well-being suggests that they should talk about their
thoughts and feelings directly related to the cause of stress (e.g., Lepore, 1997; Pennebaker,
1997; Sloan et al., 2005). For example, participants who wrote about their traumatic
experiences reported reductions in depressive symptoms (Sloan et al., 2005). Therefore,
it would be beneficial for international students to disclose their prejudice experiences
to counteract the negative influence of that experience. However, international students
might hesitate to talk about their experiences with prejudice to host nationals. So, who
should they choose as the recipient of their self-disclosure? Would the effect of self-
disclosure vary depending on who they disclose themselves to? To address these various
research questions, future studies should investigate other aspects of cross-ethnic self-
disclosure such as its contents and recipients.
Second, this correlational study does not make it possible to argue the causal
relationships among variables. For instance, this study assumes that perceived prejudice
causes loneliness. However, based on the results, it is also possible to argue that
international students who feel lonely tend to perceive negative interaction with host
nationals as prejudice. The possibility makes sense considering that people who feel
isolated from others might be sensitive to reactions from others, so they may believe that
they are unequally treated due to their personal characteristics such as race and ethnicity.
Similarly, this study assumes that self-disclosure alleviates the negative effect of prejudice
and leads to positive well-being, but it is also possible that people without psychological
distress tend to talk about themselves because they are confident. To minimize the
possibilities that are not consistent with the arguments of this study, several theoretical
accounts are used such as a theory of interpersonal rejection (Richman & Leary, 2009) and
the personalization model (Brewer & Miller, 1984). However, still, the results do not fully
provide evidence of the causal relationships that this study hypothesizes.
To address this limitation, further experimental studies should be conducted. For
example, participants who study abroad might be assigned to two groups: an experimental
group or a control group. In the experimental group, participants would be asked to talk
about themselves to a host national. In the control group, on the other hand, participants
would be asked to talk about information that is not related to themselves to a host
national confederate. After that, in both conditions, they would report their psychological
well-being. It can be hypothesized that those in the experimental group would report more
psychological well-being than those in the control condition.
However, the experimental design could not avoid criticism either. The main criticism
lies in the generalizability of the results to natural settings in which international students
interact with host nationals. The phenomena observed in the highly controlled setting
in this experimental study might not occur in real interactions. Also, even if the results
indicate that self-disclosure buffers the negative effect of prejudice in the experiment,
it might not be ethical that some participants are not provided with the opportunity to
disclose themselves. To improve the study design further, future studies should consider
various methods including qualitative methods such as observation to carefully examine
the influence of self-disclosure on perceived prejudice.
Finally, the generalizability of the current findings is limited because the sample of this
study was only international students studying in Japan. International students in other
countries that accept more international students such as the United States and Australia
could have different experiences of prejudice.
Implications
To address the issue of prejudice that international students experience, educational
institutions should first make stronger efforts to prevent prejudice from occurring in
school. However, realistically, it is almost impossible to eliminate prejudice in schools
where students from various national and cultural backgrounds study together. Therefore,
it is more realistic and constructive to provide international students who experience
prejudice with opportunities to cope with its negative effects. The results of this study
may help educational institutions consider offering such opportunities. For example, most
universities accepting international students have activities that help the students become
involved with host nationals. However, most of the activities do not focus on international
students who are worried about their experiences of prejudice. This study found that
international students’ self-disclosure with host nationals prevents the international
students from feeling depressed or lonely. Thus, incorporating some activities in which
international students could talk about themselves with host nationals should be effective
in helping them adjust to life in a host country.
However, this study also revealed that disclosing themselves deeply did not alleviate
the negative effects of prejudice on the loneliness international students experience. In
line with these results, past research has indicated that highly intimate self-disclosure
may not elicit liking from the recipient of disclosure (Bochner, 1982; Chaikin & Derlega,
1974). Taken together, it may be critical for practitioners to encourage international
students to disclose their less intimate information first and more intimate information
as the relationship develops. The importance of the gradual development of interpersonal
relationships is also argued for in social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This
theory emphasizes that less intimate self-disclosure is effective in the beginning stage of
a relationship and the content of self-disclosure should be deepened as the relationship
progresses.
Taken together, it is important for educational institutions to prepare opportunities for
international students in which they are comfortable with talking about themselves with
people from different countries, including host nationals. In reality, such opportunities
are not fully provided. For instance, most international centers of universities in various
countries provide opportunities for international students to interact with host nationals
such as conversation partner programs, international coffee hour, and intercultural
festivals. However, it may be difficult for international students to engage in satisfying
conversation with others due to language and cultural barriers (Smith & Khawaja, 2011).
As a result, they may leave the activity feeling isolated and disappointed. The results of
this study suggest that it is crucial for educational institutions to develop more structured
programs in which international students are comfortable with disclosing themselves to
others in an appropriate manner to ward off the negative effect of perceived prejudice.
80 Imai and Imai
Conclusion
Even though past studies showed that many international students suffer from expe-
riences of prejudice from host nationals (e.g., Zhang & Goodson, 2011), there is little
research examining strategies to alleviate the negative effects caused by their experiences
with prejudice. Using various theories of intergroup contact, this study investigates the
buffering role of international students’ self-disclosure to host nationals in the associa-
tion between their experiences of prejudice and their depression and loneliness. Results
revealed that whereas depth of self-disclosure moderated the association between preju-
dice and depression, amount of self-disclosure moderated the association between prej-
udice and loneliness. The results may be helpful to refine programs for international stu-
dents so that they could ward off the negative effects caused by prejudice. Future stud-
ies should be conducted to extend these findings by assessing the content of the self-
disclosure and examining different disclosure recipients.
Funding
This research is supported by Nanzan University [Pache I-A-2 grant, 2014]
References
Adams, G. R. & Sheam, J. A. (1981). Talking and loving: A cross-lagged panel investigation.
Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 2, 81–88.
Adams, R. E. & Cantin, S. (2013). Self-disclosure in friendships as the moderator of
the association between peer victimization and depressive symptoms in overweight
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 341–362.
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Doubleday Anchor, New York.
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. Winston, New York: Holt, Rinehart.
Archer, R. L., Berg, J. H., & Runge, T. E. (1980). Active and passive observers’ attraction to a
self-disclosing other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 120–130.
Atlas, P. (2016). A quick look at global mobility trends.
Benner, A. D. & Wang, Y. (2016). Racial/ethnic discrimination and adolescents’ well-being:
The role of cross-ethnic friendships and friends’ experiences of discrimination.
Berg, J. H. & Archer, R. L. (1983). The disclosure-liking relationship: Effects of self
perception, order of disclosure, and topical similarity. Human Communication
Research, 10, 269–282.
Berg, J. H. & Wright-Buckley, C. (1988). Effects of racial similarity and interviewer intimacy
in a peer counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 377–384.
Bevis, T. B. (2002). At a glance: International students in the United States. International
Educator, 11, 12–17.
Bian, M. & Leung, L. (2014). Smartphone addiction: Linking loneliness, shyness,
symptoms and patterns of use to social capital. Media Asia, 41, 159–176.
Bochner, A. P. (1982). On the efficacy of openness in closed relationships. In Burgoon,

M., editor, Communication yearbook, volume 5, pages 109–124, New Brunswick, NJ.
Transaction Books.
Brewer, M. B. & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives
on desegregation. In Miller, N. & Brewer, M. B., editors, Groups in contact: The
psychology of desegregation, pages 281–302, New York. Academic Press.
Brisset, C., Safdar, S., Lewis, J. R., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Psychological and sociocultural
adaptation of university students in France: The case of Vietnamese international
students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 413–426.
Chaikin, A. L. & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Liking for the norm-breaker in self-disclosure. Journal
of Personality, 42, 117–129.
Derlega, V. J. & Grzelak, J. (1979). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In Chelune, G. J.,
editor, Origins, patterns and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships,
pages 151–176, San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Ensari, N. & Miller, N. (2002). Out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of
personalization, typicality and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 313–329.
Ensari, N. & Miller, N. (2005). Prejudice and intergroup attributions: The role of
personalization and performance feedback. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 8,
391–410.
Farber, B. A. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy. Guilford Press, New York.
Gierveld, J. J., Tilburg, T., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Loneliness and social isolation. In
Vangelisti, A. & Perlman, D., editors, The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships,
pages 485–500, New York. Cambridge University Press.
Gortner, E., Rude, S. S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Benefits of expressive writing in
lowering rumination and depressive symptoms. Behavior Therapy, 37, 292–303.
Education, 10, 157–173.
Harrison, P. (2002). Educational exchange for international understanding. International
Educator, 11, 2–4.
Imai, T. (2017). How you see us hurts me! Influences of metastereotypes that
international students hold on their self-disclosure, loneliness and depression. Journal
of Intercultural Communication Research, 46, 385–399.
Iwao, S. & Hagiwara, S. (1988). Foreign students studying in Japan: Social psychological
analysis. The Keiso Shobo, Tokyo.
Jung, E., Hecht, M. L., & Wadsworth, B. C. (2007). The role of identity in international
students’ psychological well-being in the United States: A model of depression level,
identity gaps, discrimination, and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 31, 605–624.
Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of college students’ goals on the
development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal,
82 Imai and Imai
38, 441–452.
Lepore, S. J. (1997). Expressive writing moderates the relation between intrusive thoughts
and depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1030–1037.
Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ (“I seek you”) use. CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 5, 241–251.
Maruyama, M. (1998). Cross-cultural adaptation and host environment: A study of
international students. in Japan (Doctoral dissertation.
Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social
Issues, 58, 387–410.
Organization, J. S. S. (2017). Results of survey on international students in 2017. Retrieved
from.
Parks, M. R. (1981). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the
world. In Burgoon, M., editor, Communication yearbook, volume 5, pages 79–108, New
Brunswick, NJ. Transaction Books.
Patron, M. (2014). Loss and loneliness among international students. Psychology Journal,
11, 24–43.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process.
Psychological Science, 8, 162–166.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
Powers, D. A. & Ellison, C. G. (1995). Interracial contact and Black racial attitudes: The
contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces, 74, 205–226.
homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The
Journal of Psychology, 141, 263–280.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rahman, O. & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturation, competence, and mental health among
South Asian students in the United States. Journal of Multicultural Counselling and
Development, 32, 130–140.
Richman, L. S. & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization,
ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model.
Psychological Review, 116, 365–383.
Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor
structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
Sabetto, M. & Sabetto, Y. (2010). Culture shock in Japan: International student perspective.
Chigensha, Saitama, Japan.
Sam, D. L. (2001). Satisfaction with life among international students: An exploratory
study. Social Indicator Research, 53, 315–337.
Sandhu, D. S. & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for

international students: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 75, 435–448.
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness
and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12, 148–180.
Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group
identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 33, 1–12.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and
cooperation. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Sloan, D. M., Marx, B. P., & Epstein, E. M. (2005). Further examination of the exposure
model underlying the efficacy of written emotional disclosure. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 73, 549–554.
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 699–713.
Suzuki, Y. (2011). Situations of international students and education for them in Japan.
Shunpusha, Yokohama, Japan.
Wei, M. F., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, social self-efficacy,
self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 602–614.
Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement,
validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3, 47–61.
Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59–63.
adjustment to life in the United States: a systematic review. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 35, 139–162.
Author biography
Tatsuya Imai is an assistant professor in the Department of British and American
Studies at Nanzan University. His research interests include acculturation, prejudice, and
intercultural communication.
Ayako Imai Her research interests lie in the area of intercultural communication, focusing
on international students’ adjustment.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 84–96
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.268
ojed.org/jis
Faculty Views on International Students:

A Survey Study
Li Jina and Jason Schneidera
Abstract: This article investigates perceptions of international students among faculty at a university
in the United States. Based on data collected from a large-scale online survey (n = 261), the
study explores four issues: (1) faculty perceptions of international students’ positive attributes; (2)
faculty perceptions of international students’ academic and social challenges; (3) faculty perceptions
of their own challenges when teaching international students; and (4) statistically significant
relationships between faculty views and their own background characteristics, including ethnicity,
academic status, multilingual skills, birth place, and experience studying or living abroad. Results
offer new insights on faculty beliefs and highlight key considerations in the hiring, training, and
support of faculty to promote positive learning experiences for international students.
Keywords: faculty beliefs, international students, internationalization, quantified

qualitative data, survey study
Introduction
Over the last two decades, internationalization has evolved from being “an interesting and
appealing component of an institution’s profile” to “a core issue of concern” (Rumbley,
Altback, & Reisberg, 2012, p. 3). In the case of the United States, it is difficult
to imagine an institution that is not actively pursuing a strategy of “comprehensive
internationalization” (Hudzik, 2011), and invariably, the recruitment of international
students—that is, primarily, students on F-1 visas who have come to the US for the purpose
of study—holds special status. This is due, at least in part, to the effort by colleges and
universities to find new sources of revenue.
Given the arrival of more international students in recent years, many members of
the campus community—including support staff, domestic students, and faculty—are
increasingly concerned with how to accommodate students from diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. The role of faculty on this issue, in particular, should not be
underestimated. We know that faculty are key to the success of all students (Cole, 2010;
O’Meara, Knudsen, & Jones, 2013; Yee, 2016). In the case of international students,
a DePaul University.
Faculty Views on International Students 85
researchers have documented ways in which faculty behaviors can shape these students’
experiences both positively and negatively (Montgomery, 2017; Yan & Pei, 2018). Glass,
Kociolek, Wongtrirat, Lynch, and Cong (2015) speculated that faculty may be “the most
influential persons shaping an international student’s academic trajectory” (p. 353;
see also Korhonen & Weil, 2015). Stohl (2007) observed that without strong faculty
engagement, the larger project of internationalization “will not deliver the learning,
discovery, and engagement that we seek” (p. 360). Nonetheless, as others have noted,
the role of faculty in internationalization has received limited scholarly attention (Cao, Li,
Jiang, & Bai, 2014; Dewey & Duff, 2009; Haan, Gallagher, & Varandani, 2017; Korhonen &
Weil, 2015; Leask, 2013; Sawir, 2011).
The current paper aims to address the gap by reporting on both qualitative and
quantitative results from a large-scale online survey (n = 261) conducted among faculty
at a university in the United States. This paper draws on the results to investigate four
interrelated issues: (1) faculty perceptions of international students’ positive attributes;
(2) faculty perceptions of international students’ academic and social challenges; (3) self-
reported faculty challenges in teaching international students; (4) statistically significant
relationships between faculty background characteristics (e.g., ethnicity and multilingual
skills) and their perceptions of international students. We believe the results reported
here offer an important contribution to the growing discourse on internationalization by
uncovering what faculty believe about international students and connecting those views
to faculty members’ own diverse background characteristics.
Literature Review
Empirical studies exploring the topic of faculty and international students have followed
one of two approaches: gathering data through surveys or interviews with international
students (Glass et al., 2015; Mak, Bodycott, & Ramburuth, 2015; Mamiseishvili, 2012;
Palmer, 2016), or gathering data through surveys, interviews, or other methods with faculty
(Andrade, 2010; Cao et al., 2014; Dewey & Duff, 2009; Haan et al., 2017; Korhonen &
Weil, 2015; Sawir, 2011; Trice, 2003). At least one study employs a combination of both
approaches (Nieto & Booth, 2010). Other publications offer theoretical or anecdotal
insights with the help of secondary empirical sources (Edwards & Teekends, 2012; Leask,
2007; Lillyman & Bennett, 2014; Ramachandran, 2011; Roy, 2013; Ryan & Viete, 2009).
Given that our study draws on data collected from faculty, we are primarily interested
in studies that take a similar approach. However, insights from students and theoretical
arguments also offer crucial knowledge, so we have also included these studies in the
literature review.
A useful overarching observation comes from Haan et al. (2017), who described a
“mismatch” between faculty beliefs and practices in relation to international students.
On the one hand, many faculty participants in a survey carried out at their university
expressed a positive view on the idea of internationalization and the arrival of more
international students. They valued the “exposure to other cultures” and the “global
learning environment,” which offers domestic students “a wonderful chance to grow and
learn from others” (p. 42). On the other hand, faculty expressed “reservations about their
own roles in working with a changing student population” (p. 46) and resent adapting their
86 Jin and Schneider
teaching practices for linguistically diverse students. This dichotomy provides a generative
frame for interpreting the insights that emerge from a range of studies.
In terms of appreciating international students, the view that they add cultural,
experiential, and linguistic diversity is a commonplace theme in the literature. Writing
from a British perspective, Ramachandran (2011) heralded this new diversity as a site
for mutual exchange: “While students in the UK get firsthand information on issues that
stem from religion, politics and social life, and culture and practices in different countries,
overseas students benefit from experiences in an international environment” (p. 202).
Similarly, Ryan and Viete (2009) observed that the arrival of more international students in
Australia has represented “an enormous potential for the learning of all” (p. 303). Drawing
on data from interviews with faculty in four departments at a U.S. university, Trice (2003)
identified specific contributions of international students. The two positive contributions
mentioned by faculty across all four disciplines were the students’ potential to provide
an “international perspective within the unit” and to represent “the highest quality of
students” (p. 392).
While these and other positive views emerge from the literature, studies also highlight
instances of faculty uncertainty, frustration, or lack of preparation. One important area
of focus has been international students’ language abilities. Multiple studies confirm that
faculty consider some students’ linguistic skills to be weak or even inadequate for typical
academic tasks (Andrade, 2010; Cao et al., 2014; Haan et al., 2017; Nguyen, 2013; Roy,
2013; Ryan & Viete, 2009; Trice, 2003). As Cao et al. (2014) note, weak language skills
can also foreground other problems, including cultural isolation (see also Trice, 2003).
Along the same lines, Ryan and Viete (2009) observed that faculty often see multilingual
students as working with a deficit, and language skills can indirectly affect “the ways
international students are assessed and afforded rights of participation” (p. 305; see also
Zamel, 1995; Marginson, 2013). More pointedly, they argued that “many academics base
their assessments of students on judgements about students’ use and control of language
and these can be influenced by idealized views of language fluency and sophistication”
(p. 305). As a result, faculty usually show minimal interest in helping students with
their English skills or learning more about pedagogical methods for teaching linguistically
diverse students (Andrade, 2010; Haan et al., 2017).
Beyond the issue of language, existing research documents other perceived student
challenges, including cultural differences (Eland & Thomas, 2013; Trice, 2003), social
segregation (Cao et al., 2014; Eland & Thomas, 2013; Trice, 2003), financial difficulties
(Ramachandran, 2011; Trice, 2003), student self-efficacy (Mak et al., 2013), and
unfamiliarity with some U.S. pedagogic approaches (Roy, 2013; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini,
2005). These insights are unsurprising for anyone who has experience working with
international students. Perhaps the more pressing question is the extent to which faculty’s
own background characteristics may shape these attitudes and beliefs.
Among the limited studies investigating this issue, two studies (Fallon & Brown, 1999;
Nieto & Booth, 2010) reported that faculty with higher intercultural competencies (e.g.,
English as a second language instructors or those who speak a foreign language and have
experience teaching abroad) have more positive attitudes toward international students.
Another study (De Beuckelaer, Lievens, & Bücker, 2012) documented the extent to which
cross-cultural competencies among faculty (e.g., high levels of cultural empathy and open-
mindedness) are appreciated by students in multicultural and international settings. Two
other studies (Biglan, 1973; Trice, 2003) showed that faculty disciplines influence their
perceptions of international students and international education. Specifically, faculty
in hard sciences and engineering are less sensitive to the unique challenges faced by
international students and more prone to frame their challenges as deficits.
The studies cited above provide basis for insights on faculty and internationalization.
However, the overall number of studies remains small, and there are very few studies
that incorporate quantitative methodology in analyzing faculty perceptions (exceptions
include Cao et al., 2014; Nieto & Booth, 2010; Sawir, 2011). The current study
was conducted to further investigate faculty perceptions of international students by
quantifying those perceptions and examining their relationships to faculty background
characteristics.
Research Questions
A total of four research questions were answered in the current study.
1. What are faculty perceptions of positive attributes brought by international

students?
2. What are faculty perceptions of challenges faced by international students?
3. What are faculty perceptions of challenges they face when teaching international
students?
4. Are there statistically significant relationships between faculty perceptions of
international students and their background characteristics, including academic
discipline, ethnicity, academic status, multilingual skills, and experience studying
or living abroad?
Methodology
This study involved qualitative data analysis followed by descriptive statistical analysis of
quantified qualitative data (e.g., Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, 2009). Two major phases of
data analysis were undertaken. Phase 1 focused on qualitative analysis, i.e., identifying
patterns and themes in answers to three open-ended questions, the results of which help
answer Research Questions 1, 2, and 3. Phase 2 was comprised of quantifying the results in
Phase 1, including tabulating the frequencies of themes identified in Phase 1, followed by a
series of chi-square analyses of independence. The results of the chi-square analyses were
aimed specifically at answering Research Question 4. The driving force for the adoption
of this two-phase design is the triple purpose of the study, which aims to (1) identify
faculty perceptions, some of which we believe are most effectively gathered through open-
ended qualitative responses; (2) to quantify and rank those perceptions according to
frequency; and (3) to understand the relationships between those perceptions and faculty
backgrounds. As mentioned earlier, data were collected through a single source, an online
survey. To address the specific research questions stated above, only pertinent data from
the survey were analyzed.
Data Collection
The study was conducted at a comprehensive private university in the Midwestern region
of the United States. The entire faculty at the university, including both full-time and
part-time instructors, were invited to be research participants. Based on the literature
review and researchers’ interests, an online survey containing 17 questions was developed
(Appendix A). The first seven questions were multiple choice, asking about respondents’
background information. The last 10 questions were either multiple choice or open ended,
asking about faculty perceptions, beliefs, and practices. A pilot study was conducted with
a group of faculty volunteers, which led to some revisions. After approval was obtained
from the Institutional Review Board for the revised instrument, a recruitment email was
officially distributed in April 2017 to the entire faculty. Faculty were apprised of the
purpose of the study and informed that they would not be financially compensated for
filling out the survey. Three email reminders were sent over the span of 4 weeks. Among
1,865 faculty members from 10 colleges at the institution, 261 sets of responses were
collected, which renders a response rate of 14.0%. The survey completion rate was 99%,
which means only a very small number of respondents did not complete the survey after
opening it. Only the data collected from Questions 1–11 were analyzed for the current
study.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted in two major phases. Phase 1 aimed to identify emerging
themes in open-ended questions in relation to three issues: (1) positive attributes
of international students (Survey Question 9); (2) challenges faced by international
students (Survey Question 10); (3) challenges faced by faculty (Survey Question 11). To
ensure a comprehensive understanding of various faculty perceptions, a grounded theory
approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was adopted. First, both researchers independently
identified, grouped, and coded data that shared similar themes. Then, they met and
compared results. Discrepancies were discussed until an agreement was reached for a
series of definitive codes. At the end of Phase 1, emerging categories were identified to
help answer Research Questions 1, 2, and 3.
For Phase 2, three major steps were undertaken for descriptive statistical analysis. Step
1 focused on tabulating in an Excel file each category in all three areas identified in Phase 1.
Those participants whose comments contained codes under a certain category were given
a value of 1 and those whose comments did not were given 0. Categories for which the
frequencies were lower than 20 (7.7% of the total survey respondents) would not render
meaningful statistical analysis and thus were excluded from further quantitative analysis.
In Step 2, the data regarding participants’ college, academic status, ethnicity, place of
birth, prior experience studying or living abroad, and multilingual skills were tabulated
and recorded in the same Excel file. Step 3 comprised a series of chi-square analyses
of independence, which evaluated statistically significant relationships between faculty’s
perceptions identified in Step 1 and their respective background characteristics identified
in Step 2. All chi-square analyses were run through SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp, 2016).
In order to meet all assumptions of chi-square tests, especially the assumption that the
expected values in all frequency cells exceed five counts, the researchers retabulated the
data related to three faculty background characteristics (faculty’s college, ethnicity, and
academic status) by combining certain categories and ran additional chi-square tests. The
results of Phase 2 help address Research Question 4.
Findings
Before presenting findings, it is important to note some features of survey participants’
backgrounds, and particularly those that were found to have statistically significant
influence on responses. As shown in Table 1, the majority of participants self-identified as
White (77.78%), were born in the United States (77.78%), and speak only English (56.7%).
There was a diverse range of faculty ranks represented, with nearly half of responses
(46.36%) coming from part-time faculty. These demographics generally reflect the overall
faculty demographics at the university, as white faculty account for 71.2% of the entire
faculty and part-time faculty account for 50.1%.
Faculty Perceptions of International Students’ Positive Attributes

Survey participants’ responses to the open-ended question about positive attributes
brought by international students (question 9) were grouped into the following four
categories, as illustrated in Table 2: international students offer different and diverse
views; they have better academic performances; they bring global perspectives to class
discussions and assignments; and they contribute to campus multilingualism. Regarding
the different and diverse cultural perspectives brought by international students, one
participant stressed that international students bring “a diverse perspective to language
and culture. A different approach to education and accessing/sharing knowledge. A
[generally] different way of seeing the world and interpreting things.”
Faculty Perceptions of Challenges Faced by International Students

In terms of challenges faced by international students (Question 10), analysis of
results found that faculty believe international students face three primary types of
challenges on and off campus (Table 3). These have been categorized as academic
challenges, sociocultural challenges, and other challenges related to finances, legal
status, and professional aspirations. Regarding academic challenges, a total of 173
participants (66.28%) pointed out that students encounter great challenges due to
their lack of English language proficiency. While many of these responses addressed
language challenges in general, some highlighted the following specific skills: writing
(20.68%), oral communication (16.09%), reading (4.59%), and listening (2.68%). The
second most frequently mentioned academic challenge lies in the differing academic
expectations or preparation that international students may have upon arriving to a
U.S. campus. Sixty-nine faculty participants (26.44%) pointed out that international
students usually have different understandings about various aspects of the academic
environment, including the professor–student relationship, teaching/learning styles, in-
class participation, assignment requirements, and academic integrity. Some academic
challenges—such as students’ lack of confidence in speaking English, lack of knowledge
about students’ rights and other campus resources, a narrow worldview, and lack of
rigor—were mentioned by only a few participants.
Regarding sociocultural challenges, faculty responses were organized into the following
five categories: international students’ lack of local social networks, cultural differences,
lack of daily communication skills, discrimination and social exclusion in the US, and self-
seclusion. Concern about international students’ loneliness in the US due to their loss of
familial support and difficulty in building new networks in the US was the most frequently
noted sociocultural challenge (21.07%). The second most mentioned (18.39%) was that of
cultural differences between international students’ home cultures and the US.
Faculty Perceptions of Challenges Faced by Faculty

Although open-ended Survey Question 11 asked participants to identify the challenges
they face when teaching international students, most participants reported instead on
challenges faced by international students. As shown in Table 4, only 37 participants
(14.18%) explicitly pointed to challenges that they face in teaching international
students, such as uncertainty when explaining and grading assignments, understanding
international students’ accented English or written homework, and engaging them in class
activities. One participant stated:
Another issue that I have struggled with is adequately grading students

that are struggling with the English language... If they are singular
presentations, they struggle to make eloquent or sufficient remarks. Per
writing, students who might be better at speaking sometimes struggle
with sentence structure or spelling. I often don’t know how to adequately
and appropriately grade them in comparison to other native-English
speaking students.
As noted, many responses to this question actually addressed perceived student

challenges, not faculty challenges. These responses reaffirmed the views highlighted
in the previous section, with the largest numbers of responses addressing students’
limited English language proficiency, lack of understanding of U.S. academic culture, and
limited knowledge of U.S. society in general. One participant highlighted her feeling that
variations in gender norms across cultures can be a serious challenge:
As a female professor, [I was] dealing with a male international student

where it became evident that his culture or upbringing put women into
more of a subservient role. I got a lot of “why will you not do this for me?”
attitude I haven’t seen before.
A small number of faculty participants (8.81%) also empathized with international

students on life-related challenges (e.g., financial, legal, and professional challenges in the
United States). Additionally, a few participants (2.68%) shifted the source of challenges to
the university, citing a lack of personnel support and resources for helping international
students. Also, interestingly, 56 faculty (21.46%) reported “none” in response to question
11.
Relationships Between Faculty Perceptions and Background

Characteristics
Over 100 chi-square tests of independence were conducted to examine relationships
between the identified faculty perceptions and their various background characteristics.
Nine pairs of relationships are statistically significant, as shown in Table 5 (data about
statistically insignificant relationships are available upon request). Further examination of
frequency distribution shows that White faculty (85.5%), compared to non-White faculty
(72.7%), are more likely to see international students’ diverse views as a positive attribute.
Similarly, faculty who were born in the US but have studied or lived abroad (88.53%) are
more likely than those who have not (78.31%) to have this view. White faculty (74.7%)
are also more likely than non-White faculty (59.1%) to explain international students’
academic challenges in terms of limited English language proficiency. Faculty who were
born in the US (76.41%) are more likely than those who were born outside the US (53.49%)
to point to English language challenges. Faculty who speak only English (77.54%) are more
likely than those who speak one (68.25%) or more (57.50%) additional languages to say the
same. Faculty who were born outside the US (41.86%) are more likely than those who were
born in the US (25.64%) to believe that international students face academic challenges
due to different academic preparation or expectations.
Compared to part-time faculty (20%), full-time faculty (33.9%), including tenure-track
and non-tenure track faculty, are more likely to frame their own challenges in terms of
international students’ limited knowledge about U.S. academic culture. In contrast, part-
time faculty (21.8%) are more likely than full-time faculty (10.5%) to state that they face
challenges when teaching international students. Lastly, non-White faculty (36.6%) are
more likely than White faculty (21.1%) to report “none” when asked about challenges they
face when teaching international students.
Overall, except for college, all faculty background characteristics addressed in the
survey have statistically significant influence on faculty perceptions of international
students.
Discussion
The results presented above cover a wide range of issues connected to faculty perceptions
and attitudes. Three major issues will be the focus of the discussion here, as they
highlight ways in which this study interacts with previous studies and offers new insights.
Additionally, limitations of the study will be addressed.
First, a key finding is that a large percentage of faculty express a positive orientation
towards international students. This affirms a point made by many other researchers (e.g.,
Haan et al., 2017; Ramachandran, 2011; Ryan & Viete, 2009; Trice, 2003). In particular,
respondents highlighted the diverse and global perspectives that international students
bring to the classroom and campus, as well as their strong academic abilities and unique
multilingual skills. Additionally, faculty expressed acute awareness of and sympathy
for the everyday sociocultural challenges that students encounter when studying in a
new country. These points provide important reassurance that most faculty—at least at
this institution—want to work with international students. This insight can be helpful
to administrators who are trying to globalize the curriculum and the university more
generally: The aim should be channeling the existing positive views of faculty towards
concrete initiatives.
However, the positive perceptions of international students are sometimes coupled
with an uncertainty about how to accommodate and support these students in the
classroom, which Haan et al. (2017) have described as a “mismatch” in faculty attitudes.
Thus, a second major point that emerges from the study is the extent to which many
faculty framed their own teaching challenges in terms of student challenges, or even
student limitations. When asked explicitly to identify teaching challenges, only 14.18% of
respondents indicated issues that seemed to correspond to the question (e.g., challenges
in understanding and assessing students); many more faculty (62.83%) framed their
feelings of challenge as emanating from student characteristics, such as English language
skills and cultural differences. This reveals a key tension. Faculty welcome the
presence of international students, but they also feel that some of these students’ specific
characteristics can cause problems for teaching—a view that was especially common
among full-time faculty and less common for part-time faculty. Also implicit in this
view is the belief that faculty themselves do not have limitations. This corroborates
research findings at other universities (e.g., Andrade, 2010; Haan et al., 2017; Ryan & Viete,
2009). Echoing the linguistically responsive instruction proposed by Haan et al. (2017),
professional development should help faculty realize that the arrival of more international
students does indeed require a reconsideration of pedagogic practices.
Third, a key issue that emerges from the findings, and a unique contribution to
the existing literature, is the influence of faculty backgrounds on their beliefs about
international students. Unlike some other studies, in particular Trice (2003) and Nieto
and Booth (2010), our study did not find statistically significantly relationships between
faculty views and their colleges/disciplines, which may be due at least in part to the
exact disciplines offered at this specific university (e.g., there is no college of engineering).
However, as described, there were multiple statistically significant relationships between
faculty background characteristics and views on international students. Importantly,
some of the trends are not easy to categorize in simple binary terms. For example,
while White faculty are more likely than non-White faculty to comment that international
students bring different views as a positive attribute, suggesting strong appreciation for
cultural difference, they are also more likely to pinpoint English language skills as a key
area of challenge, suggesting less tolerance for linguistic variation. On the other hand,
certain relationships seem unsurprising, e.g., English monolingual faculty and those who
were born in the US are more likely to see developing English language skills as a problem,
and faculty who have themselves studied abroad are more likely to express appreciation
for the diverse cultural contributions of international students. The documentation of
relationships such as these provides empirical basis for the argument that faculty whose
backgrounds are most similar to those of international students have the best chances
of understanding and empathizing with them. This can be a crucial consideration in
the recruitment and hiring of new faculty. The significant relationship between faculty
status and their tendency to frame faculty challenges as student deficits also reveals a gap
in beliefs between full-time and adjunct faculty. Professional development can help all
faculty understand their own various biases when teaching international students.
Limitations exist in this study. First, despite the high number of responses in
comparison to similar studies, the response rate (14.0%) was relatively low. This might
have hampered the representativeness of the data, but it is an inherent limitation of
survey studies. Second, faculty perceptions of undergraduate-level and graduate-level
international students may be very different, and the survey did not ask respondents to
distinguish between the two.
Conclusion
The prospect that any institution can successfully welcome and support international
students is largely dependent on faculty. Yet, the question of how faculty perceive and
respond to international students in their own classrooms has received little research
attention. Furthermore, given the extent to which the recruitment of international
students today represents an effort to increase revenues, especially in the United States,
fostering appropriate beliefs and effective faculty practices towards international students
should be seen as an ethical obligation. The insights that emerge from this study can
inform institutional decisions around faculty hiring, training, and support. However, as
noted, the study has its limitations; thus, we believe similar studies need to be carried out
at other institutions and in other regions of the world. This can lead to broader insights
about faculty and help guide innovations that will improve the experiences of both faculty
and international students in the years ahead.
References
Andrade, M. (2010). Increasing accountability. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 14(3), 221–239.
Beuckelaer, A. D., F., L., & Bücker, J. (2012). The role of faculty members’ cross-cultural
competencies in their perceived teaching quality: Evidence from culturally-diverse
classes in four European countries. Journal of Higher Education, 83(2), 217–258.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.
Cao, Y., Li, X., Jiang, A., & Bai, K. (2014). Motivators and outcomes of faculty actions towards
international students: Under the influence of internationalization. International
Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 49–63.
Cole, D. (2010). The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority students’ college
grades: Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. Journal of the
Professoriate, 3(2), 137–160.
Corp, I. B. M. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Corp, I.B.M., Armonk,
NY.
Dewey, P. & Duff, S. (2009). Reason before passion: Faculty views on internationalization
in higher education. Higher Education, 58, 491–504.
Edwards, J. & Teekends, H. (2012). Leveraging technology and the international classroom
for cross-cultural learning. In Deardorff, D. K., Wit, H., Heyl, J. D., & Adams, T., editors,
The SAGE handbook of international higher education, pages 267–282, Thousand Oaks,
CA. Sage.
Eland, A. & Thomas, K. (2013). Succeeding abroad: International students in the United
States. In Alberts, H. C. & Hazen, H. D., editors, International students and scholars in
the United States: Coming from abroad, pages 145–162, New York. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fallon, G. & Brown, R. B. (1999). What about the workers? Academic staff opinion about
working with non-UK postgraduate students in higher education. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 23, 41–52.
experiences: The impact of student-faculty interactions on international students’ sense
of belonging. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353–367.
Haan, J. E., Gallagher, C. E., & Varandani, L. (2017). Working with linguistically diverse
classes across the disciplines: Faculty beliefs. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 17(1), 37–51.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action.
Korhonen, V. & Weil, M. (2015). The internationalisation of higher education: Perspectives
on self-conceptions in teaching. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(3),
198–212.
Leask, B. (2007). International teachers and international learning. In Jones, E. &
Brown, S., editors, Internationalizing higher education: Enhancing teaching, learning
and curriculum, pages 86–94, New York. Routledge.
Leask, B. (2013). Internationalizing the curriculum in the disciplines—Imagining new
possibilities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 103–118.
Lillyman, S. & Bennett, C. (2014). Providing a positive learning experience for international
students studying at UK universities: A literature review. Journal of Research in
International Education, 13(1), 63–75.
Mak, A. S., Bodycott, P., & Ramburuth, P. (2015). Beyond host language proficiency:
Coping resources predicting international students’ satisfaction. Journal of Studies in
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary
institutions. Higher Education. The International Journal of Higher Education and
Educational Planning, 64(1), 1–17.
Marginson, S. (2013). Equals or others? Mobile students in a nationally bordered world. In
Sovic, S. & Blythman, M., editors, International students negotiating higher education:
Critical perspectives, pages 9–27, New York. Routledge.
Montgomery, K. A. (2017). Supporting Chinese undergraduate students in transition at
U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of International Students, 7(4), 963–989.
Nguyen, H. M. (2013). Faculty advisors’ experiences with international graduate students.
Nieto, C. & Booth, M. Z. (2010). Cultural competence: Its influence on the teaching and
learning of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4),
406–425.
O’Meara, K. A., Knudsen, K., & Jones, J. (2013). The role of emotional competencies in
faculty-doctoral student relationships. Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 315–347.
Palmer, Y. M. (2016). Student to scholar: Learning experiences of international students.

Ramachandran, N. T. (2011). Enhancing international students’ experiences: An
imperative agenda for universities in the UK. Journal of Research in International
Education, 10(2), 201–220.
Roy, S. R. (2013). Educating Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students:
Recommendations to American professors. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 10–
16.
Rumbley, L., Altback, P., & Reisberg, L. (2012). Internationalization within the higher
education context. In Deardorff, D. K., Wit, H., Heyl, J. D., & Adams, T., editors, The SAGE
handbook of international higher education, pages 3–26, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Ryan, J. & Viete, R. (2009). Respectful interactions: Learning with international students in
the English-speaking academy. Teaching in Higher. Education, 14(3), 303–314.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3(3), 208–222.
Sawir, E. (2011). Academic staff response to international students and internationalising
the curriculum: The impact of disciplinary differences. International Journal for
Academic Development, 16(1), 45–57.
Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of faculty in the
internationalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies in
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and technique. Sage, London.
Trice, A. (2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and
challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 379–403.
Yan, L. & Pei, S. (2018). “Home away from home”? How international students
handle difficult and negative experiences in American higher education. Journal of
Yee, A. (2016). The unwritten rules of engagement: Social class differences in
undergraduates’ academic strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 831–858.
Zamel, V. (1995). Strangers in academia: The experiences of faculty and ESL students
across the curriculum. College Composition and Communication, 46(4), 506–521.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student
and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher
Education, 76(2), 209–231.
Author biography
Li Jin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Modern Languages at DePaul Univer-

sity. She also directs the Chinese Studies Program, an interdisciplinary undergraduate pro-
gram. Her primary research interests include second language acquisition, study abroad
and language socialization, and intercultural communication and collaboration.
Jason Schneider is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Writing, Rhetoric, &

Discourse at DePaul University, where he also coordinates the Graduate Certificate in
TESOL program. His research and teaching focus on second language writing, ESL teacher
education, and the rhetorics of immigration.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 97–110
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.261
ojed.org/jis
Mentors that Matter: International

Student Leadership Development and
Mentor Roles
Tricia R Shalkaa , Chloe S. Corcoran and Brian T. Magee
Abstract: Leadership development has been identified as an important outcome of higher education
in the United States. However, relatively few scholars have investigated leadership development
outcomes of international students studying in U.S. postsecondary contexts. Using data from the
Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, the purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate the
role of mentors in fostering leadership development outcomes for international students. Results
suggest that international students whose primary college mentor is a faculty member or a student
affairs professional demonstrate higher levels of both socially responsible leadership capacity and
leadership self-efficacy than those international students who identify their most significant mentor
as another student.
Keywords: college students, international students, leadership development, mentorship
Introduction
In 2015, an estimated 4.6 million international postsecondary students were studying
worldwide, representing significant growth from previous decades (ICEF Monitor, 2017).
The United States has experienced similar growth patterns of international students. In
fact, by the 2015–2016 academic year, international student enrollment in U.S. higher
education institutions had increased 185% from 10 years prior (Institute of International
Education [IIE], 2016). However, some scholars have questioned whether this growth in
enrollment has been paralleled by sufficient attention to the educational outcomes that
international students may derive from their experiences studying abroad in the United
States (Lee, 2010; Moores & Popadiuk, 2011; Nguyen, 2016; Shalka, 2017).
Given a growing international student population (conceptualized in this article as
students who have moved away from their home country to the United States), it
is critical that both research and practice reflect attention to ensuring international
students successfully achieve promoted outcomes of U.S. higher education. For example,
a Warner School of Education & Human Development, University of Rochester.
Corresponding author: tshalka@warner.rochester.edu

98 Shalka, Corcoran and Magee
leadership development has long been heralded as an important outcome for students in
U.S. higher education (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education,
2009; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Riutta & Teodorescu, 2014; Roberts, 2007), and college
student leadership development is a substantial research focus across a proliferating body
of literature (e.g., Campbell, Smith, Dugan, & Komives, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2010;
Kodama & Dugan, 2013). However, relatively few scholars have investigated leadership
development of international students (e.g., Collier, Rosch, & Houston, 2017; Nguyen,
2016; Shalka, 2017). What some of this previous work has unearthed, however, is the
importance of mentorship in leadership growth among international students. Yet, this
previous research failed to identify the specific roles of mentors who make a difference
in international students’ leadership development. The purpose of the current study was
to address that gap and offer insight into the specific mentorship relationships that can
contribute to or detract from leadership development of international students.
Review of Literature
To frame the current study, several important concepts are engaged in the literature review
that follows. First, an overview of the current contexts of international students studying in
U.S. higher education and the potential for positive outcomes during their time studying
abroad is provided. This framing includes a discussion of some of the dominant ways in
which international students have been constructed in the literature. Next, college student
leadership development is explored as a desired outcome of U.S. higher education and
is connected to previous research that has noted the importance of mentorship in this
process.
International Students in the Context of U.S. Higher Education

Literature about international students has often taken either a deficit approach in relation
to the student (e.g., Gautam, Lowery, Mays, & Durant, 2016; Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010)
or a benefit approach from the perspective of the host country and institution (e.g., Owens,
Srivastava, & Feerasta, 2011). Karram (2013) investigated these dichotomous discourses
as signifying tensions between humans and markets in which international students are
framed as vulnerable, while host institutions and nations are represented with market
share to gain. The deficit perspective has dominated much research about international
students and framed this student population as vulnerable, while emphasizing what is not
working in their experiences. For example, this body of scholarship has illustrated the ways
in which international students struggle in relation to their host country’s culture (Gautam
et al., 2016; Reynolds & Constantine, 2007; Sherry et al., 2010; Yan & Berliner, 2011),
language (Gautam et al., 2016; Sherry et al., 2010), and discriminatory climates (Hanassab,
2006; Lee & Rice, 2007). As a recent discourse analysis study suggests, the deficit
perspective is echoed in U.S. academic media in which particular international student
populations (in this case Chinese international students) are “othered” and portrayed as
deficient (Suspitsyna & Shalka, in press).
Conversely, literature has addressed what the United States and individual institutions
have to gain through international student enrollment. Altbach and Knight (2007) defined
Mentors That Matter 99
internationalization as a chosen institutional level response to globalization. As a choice,

internationalization is employed for its advantages to a particular organization. In the
context of U.S. higher education, international student recruitment is one pathway to such
institutional benefits. From this perspective, international students have been framed
in literature as “cultural resources” who may “[actively contribute] to the university’s
strategic goal of global engagement and internationalization” (Urban & Palmer, 2014,
p. 305) or as “stimulus potential” towards local economic gains (Owens et al., 2011, p.
157). Indeed, through the lens of market gain, international students in the United States
infuse a tremendous amount of wealth into the economy as well as their host institutions.
For the 2015–2016 academic year, international students contributed $32.8 billion to the
U.S. economy and supported 400,812 jobs (NAFSA, n.d.). Meanwhile, this economic
impact is simultaneously of direct importance to individual institutions, as evidenced in
discourses about international students as economic units and the “cash cows” of U.S.
higher education (Fischer, 2012; Karram, 2013; Stein & Andreotti, 2016). In fact, some have
argued (e.g., Altbach & Knight, 2007) that such monetary profit potential is a key reason
that institutions recruit international students.
Amidst discourses of the vulnerable international student who represents economic
gain for institutions (Karram, 2013), the question remains as to what benefits international
students receive from their participation in U.S. higher education. Although scholars
have suggested that answers to that question have not necessarily been at the forefront
of research or practice regarding international students (Moores & Popadiuk, 2011),
there are many examples in the literature that have emphasized the value-added of
U.S. higher education for international students. For example, Moores and Popadiuk
(2011) investigated the positive dimensions of international students’ transitions to
their host countries and institutions and identified how students experienced gains in
terms of personal development, increasingly complex perspectives, and capacities for
perseverance in the face of challenges. Zhao, Kuh, and Carini (2005) unearthed similar
dimensions of growth among international students including personal, social, and
academic gains during their time abroad.
The current study builds on the trajectory of work that explores the positive
outcomes international students derive from their time spent studying in the United
States, specifically through the frame of leadership development as such an outcome.
Research exploring leadership development of international students in the United States
remains sparse, yet several scholars have recently begun to investigate this intersection
(e.g., Collier, Rosch, & Houston, 2017; Nguyen, 2016; Shalka, 2017). However, this
recent literature has generally focused on exploring leadership differences between
international students and domestic students. The current study, instead, focuses
exclusively on international students and leadership, which helps to extend prior work and
simultaneously emphasize international student experiences on their own terms rather
than in relation to domestic students.
College Student Leadership Development and the Role of Mentorship

Colleges and universities play fundamental roles in educating the next generation of
leaders, with many institutions capturing this as a key element of their missions (Council
for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009; Dugan & Komives, 2007;
Riutta & Teodorescu, 2014; Roberts, 2007). Additionally, college student leadership
experience has been linked to a variety of desired outcomes in higher education including
students’ civic engagement, capacities to function in diverse environments, and increased
attractiveness to potential employers upon graduation (Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster,
& Burkhardt, 2001; National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2017). Consequently,
several institutions have dedicated substantial resources to the promotion of leadership
development in college students, including funding sources for both personnel and
programming (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2009). These efforts arguably have proven
worthwhile in the U.S. undergraduate landscape, as research has demonstrated that the
collegiate experience results in notable leadership gains during the course of students’
time in college (Mayhew et al., 2016; Rosch, Ogolsky, & Stephens, 2017).
Yet, achieving the mission of developing college students as effective leaders involves
multiple dimensions. In recent years, extensive scholarship has identified a myriad of
factors that are important to college student leadership development. For instance, key
influences on students’ leadership development include meaningful conversations and
interactions with peers about differences (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Kodama & Dugan,
2013; Riutta & Teodorescu, 2014), participation in service learning (Dugan & Komives,
2010; Wagner & Mathison, 2015), development of leadership self-efficacy (Dugan,
Kodama, Correia, & Associates, 2013; Kodama & Dugan, 2013), and leadership experience
through student organizations participation (Garcia, Huerta, Ramirez, & Patrón, 2017;
Kodama & Dugan, 2013; Martin, Hevel, & Pascarella, 2012).
As several recent studies suggest, mentorship is among the many dimensions of student
experiences that may positively contribute to leadership development outcomes (e.g.,
Campbell et al., 2012; Dugan et al., 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Oaks, Duckett, Suddeth,
& Kennedy-Phillips, 2013; Shalka, 2017). Specifically, previous studies illuminated
various aspects of the role of the mentor in contributing to college student leadership
development. For example, Dugan and Komives (2010) found faculty mentorship to be a
particularly strong predictor of college student leadership development, while Campbell et
al. (2012) found that being mentored by a student affairs professional relative to a faculty
member was a strong predictor. The Campbell et al. study did not find any significant
differences in terms of mentorship by a peer or an employer. However, both of these
studies focused on general student populations and did not isolate analyses to investigate
the experiences of international students.
In one of the few studies that did explore mentorship and leadership in international
student populations, Shalka (2017) noted the importance of this type of student support.
Specifically, international students in that study appeared to be scoring lower on measures
of socially responsible leadership relative to domestic peers. However, the presence
of mentorship focused on personal development minimized this difference. What that
study did not capture, however, was a nuanced understanding of whether different types
of mentors had different effects on international student leadership development. The
current study addressed that gap.
Theoretical Framework
The current study used two separate constructs to conceptualize college student
leadership outcomes. First, this study drew on the social change model of leadership
development (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996). Second, this study also
utilized the concept of leadership self-efficacy to articulate a particular aspect of college
student leadership capacity. Both of these constructs are briefly outlined below.
Created by a diverse team of leadership educators and scholars, the social change model
of leadership development (SCM) was established to provide a theoretical framework
that reflected evolving notions of leadership as relational and interactional processes
for purposes of socially responsible change (Dugan, 2017; HERI, 1996; Roberts, 2017).
Since its development, the SCM has emerged as one of the most widely used theories
of conceptualizing and developing college student leadership capacity across higher
education contexts both in the United States and around the world (Dugan, 2017; Roberts,
2017). The SCM frames leadership as a process (rather than a position) structured
around three values-based domains (Dugan, 2017). The individual domain includes
the intrapersonal level values of consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment.
The group domain accounts for interpersonal values of leadership processes including
collaboration, common purpose, and controversy with civility. The society/community
domain then captures leadership processes related to the value of citizenship and being in
community with others. These three domains all interact towards the explicit purpose of
change in terms of socially responsible actions.
Bandura (1997) articulated self-efficacy as a component of his broader social cognitive
theory, and this concept served as the foundation upon which leadership self-efficacy is
framed in the current study. Bandura defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3).
Of particular note, Bandura underscored that efficacy is domain-specific and the degree
of efficacy that an individual experiences will vary across different activity domains. The
current study, then, considered the domain of leadership as one of these particular activity
areas where an individual may experience a particular degree of self-efficacy.
As conceptualized by Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, and Harms (2008), leadership self-
efficacy is an individual’s appraisal and confidence in their “knowledge, skills, and abilities
[to] lead others” (p. 669). Studies have suggested leadership self-efficacy as an important
component of broader college student leadership development outcomes (Dugan &
Komives, 2010), and identified various conditions that enhance leadership self-efficacy for
college students (Dugan, Garland, Jacoby, & Gasiorski, 2008; Kodama & Dugan, 2013). Of
particular note to the current study, previous research demonstrated mentorship as an
intervention that can result in notable growth in leadership self-efficacy (Lester, Hannah,
Harms, Vogelgesang, & Avolio, 2011).
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to understand if undergraduate international students in
the United States experience any differences in leadership development outcomes based
on the role of their primary mentor at their university. Two research questions framed
this investigation. First, do significant differences exist by type of campus mentor in

terms of international students’ socially responsible leadership development? Second, do
significant differences exist by type of campus mentor in terms of international students’
leadership self-efficacy?
Data
Data used in the current study are derived from the 2009 Multi-Institutional Study of
Leadership (MSL). The MSL is an international study primarily focused on leadership
development of students in higher education. Through a variety of quantitative design
measures, the MSL examines various aspects of postsecondary environments and student
experiences that contribute to leadership outcomes. The 2009 iteration of the MSL is
grounded in the social change model of leadership development (HERI, 1996), which
informs how leadership development is conceptualized in the current study.
Two dependent variables are used to assess student leadership outcomes in the
current study. First, an adapted version of the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale
(SRLS) is engaged as a primary measure of college student leadership development.
Developed by Tyree (1998), the SRLS operationalized the social change model of leadership
development into a quantitative instrument that measures socially responsible leadership.
This instrument uses a 5-point Likert-type scale to assess leadership development along
three dimensions of the social change model: individual, group, and citizenship. This scale
maintained high reliability in the current study with a Cronbach’s a of .97.
Second, this study also used a leadership self-efficacy scale as another dependent
variable to assess a slightly different form of leadership outcome relative to socially
responsible leadership development. The MSL research team developed the leadership
self-efficacy scale to measure students’ relative confidence in their capacities to perform
various leadership behaviors using a 4-point Likert-type scale. This scale also had high
reliability with a Cronbach’s a of .88.
The independent variable in this study identified the role of the participant’s most
significant mentor in the college environment. This variable was selected so that results
could be considered in terms of what relationships may be nurtured within the campus
environment. Before respondents were asked questions about mentorship, they were
given the following prompt on the MSL instrument to help define and situate mentorship:
“A mentor is defined as a person who intentionally assists your growth or connects you
to opportunities for career or personal development.” Participants were then asked about
the frequency with which they may have received mentorship from various people in their
lives, which included both those in their college environment (e.g., faculty) and those not
in their college environment (e.g., parent/guardian). If participants indicated receiving
mentorship from someone in their college environment, they were given a follow-up
question that asked them to identify their most significant mentor at their college or
university and that person’s role. Participants could select from four categories in
identifying their most significant mentor at their institution including faculty/instructor,
employer, other student, or student affairs professional staff (participants were offered
examples including student organization advisor, career counselor, dean of students, and
residence hall coordinator). It is important to note that the MSL instrument did not
identify how mentorship was established. In other words, participants may have acquired
mentors through formal and/or informal means.
Sample
The sample for the current study included 2,556 international students from institutions
in the United States. All of these participants were undergraduates. Consistent with
other research using the MSL, only participants who completed at least 90% of the
core instrument were considered for inclusion. The current sample included those
undergraduate international students who met the 90% criteria in addition to completing
the question that asked them to identity their most significant mentor at their college or
university.
Racial diversity of respondents in the current sample was consistent with what
might be expected given the countries from which international students were arriving
to the United States during the 2008–2009 academic year (IIE, 2009), the timeframe
during which data were collected. Participants self-identified in terms of the following:
55.2% Asian American/Asian, 18.4% White/Caucasian, 3.6% Middle Eastern, 7.4% African
American/Black, 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native, 7.2% Latino/Hispanic, and 4.1%
multiracial. Additionally, 9.3% of participants indicated that their race/ethnicity was not
included among the options listed above. Distribution across class years was fairly even
with 26.0% first-years, 22.5% sophomores, 24.6% juniors, and 26.9% seniors. In terms of
gender, 54.1% of participants identified as female, 45.6% as male, and 0.3% as transgender.
Students were able to choose from four different categories in identifying their most
significant mentor at their college or university, including faculty/instructor, student
affairs professional staff, employer, or other student. In the current sample, 50.7%
of students identified a faculty member, 12.1% a student affairs professional, 5.7% an
employer, and 31.5% another student. Other questions asked students about additional
mentors in their lives, but for the purpose of this study only those who were significant
mentors at the student’s college are considered in order to ascertain what environmental
conditions within the university climate may be important components of international
student leadership development.
Analysis
Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine demographic characteristics of the
sample, as well as to identify the roles of undergraduate international students’ most
significant campus mentors. Next, statistical analyses were conducted to investigate the
specific research questions that framed this study. The first research question in this study
focused on whether or not differences exist in terms of socially responsible leadership
development of international students based on the role of their most significant campus
mentors. The second research question explored whether or not differences exist in terms
of international students’ leadership self-efficacy based on the role of their most significant
campus mentors. To answer these two questions, two separate one-way between-groups
analysis of variance tests (ANOVAs) were conducted.
Limitations
A potential limitation of this study was the decision to focus on students’ most significant
campus mentor as opposed to looking more broadly across all types of mentorship
that international students may receive. This decision was made for two reasons.
First, an exclusive focus on a significant mentor in the college environment allows for
consideration of the types of mentor relationships that could be shaped and fostered in
college environments, whereas mentorship in the community or from families may be less
under the purview of institutions. Second, this decision was also informed by limitations
of the MSL instrument that only identified a student’s most significant mentor from a list
of their campus mentors. Questions that addressed students’ mentors both on and off
campus did not ascertain which of these relationships proved most significant. Thus, it
would be difficult to determine how meaningful these other mentor relationships may be.
The emphasis on campus mentors presented in the current study, however, is
simultaneously an intentional choice of the research design as well as a possible limitation
in that students may in fact have other significant mentorship relationships that are not
captured in the current project. In other words, the influence of mentors presented
here is limited to a particular set of mentors; although, there may be other mentorship
relationships worthy of exploration in how they connect to international students’ growth
as leaders. Indeed, it could be beneficial to explore mentorship that occurs beyond the
campus environment in future studies.
Findings
Descriptive analyses were conducted to gain insight into the roles of international
students’ most significant mentors. These analyses were isolated by class year to see if
any patterns developed over the course of students’ time in higher education. As Table
1 demonstrates, a large proportion of international students identified a faculty member
as their most significant campus mentor across class years. However, the second highest
proportion of international students selected a peer as their most significant campus
mentor. By a student’s senior year, still 25% of international students indicated a peer was
their most significant campus mentor. This proportion is particularly noteworthy given
the results of the one-way ANOVA analyses to follow.
Table 1. Most significant campus mentor role for international students by class year.
First year Sophomore Junior Senior

Faculty 46.6% 47.0% 51.6% 57.1%
Student affairs professional 13.1% 14.4% 11.8% 9.3%
Employer 3.6% 5.0% 5.7% 8.1%
Other student 36.7% 33.6% 30.9% 25.4%
To explore the first research question, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance

was performed to determine whether the role of the significant campus mentor results
in a difference in terms of international students’ demonstration of socially responsible
leadership. The independent variable of the significant mentor’s role divided participants
into four possible groups: those who identified a faculty member/instructor, a student
affairs professional, an employer, or another student. Results of the one-way ANOVA
demonstrated a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in socially responsible
leadership as an outcome variable, F(3, 2552) = 4.9, p = .00. However, the effect size was
small (h2 = .01). Post hoc comparisons were conducted to establish the nature of these
differences using Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test. These comparisons
demonstrated a statistically significant difference between: (a) faculty/instructor (M =
3.88, SD = 0.44) and other student (M = 3.81, SD = 0.43), and; (b) student affairs professional
(M = 3.90, SD = 0.43) and other student (M = 3.81, SD = 0.43). In other words, international
students demonstrated better performance in terms of socially responsible leadership
when their significant campus mentor was either a faculty member or student affairs
professional rather than another student.
For the second research question, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance
was also conducted. This time, differences between groups based on the role of the
significant campus mentor were evaluated in terms of international students’ capacity
for leadership self-efficacy. Results of these analytic procedures also demonstrated a
statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level, F(3, 2552) = 9.9, p = .00, though the
effect size was small (h2 = .01). To explore these differences, Tukey’s HSD test was used.
Similar to the pattern noted above for socially responsible leadership, these comparisons
demonstrated statistically significant differences between: (a) faculty/instructor (M = 2.97,
SD = 0.67.) and other student (M = 2.82, SD = 0.69), and; (b) student affairs professional (M
= 3.00, SD = 0.68) and other student (M = 2.82, SD = 0.69). Again, this finding suggests that
international students tend to demonstrate enhanced capacity for leadership self-efficacy
when their significant mentor is either a professor or student affairs professional rather
than a peer.
Discussion and Implications

Results of this study suggested that international students whose most significant college
mentor is either a faculty member or a student affairs professional demonstrated higher
scores on both socially responsible leadership and leadership self-efficacy than those
international students who identified their most significant mentor as another student.
This is a significant finding for a variety of reasons, but one immediate implication is
related to the percentage of international students who identify a peer as their most
significant campus mentor. As Table 1 illustrates, although the percentage of international
students who identify their most significant campus mentor as a peer decreases slightly
over their time in college, there remains a sizeable proportion of international students
who are accessing their primary form of campus mentorship from other students
throughout their undergraduate careers. Indeed, by senior year, slightly more than a
quarter of international students continued to identify their most significant campus
mentor as a peer. This is a concerning trend given the results of the current study that
suggest the importance of mentorship via faculty or student affairs staff members for
improved leadership development outcomes of international students.
The results of the current study are also significant in relation to other studies
exploring the role of mentorship in college student leadership development. For
example, both Dugan and Komives (2010) and Campbell et al. (2012) demonstrated the
importance of students being mentored by a professional (faculty member or student
affairs administrator) as part of the leadership development process. This is consistent
with findings in the current study. However, the current study departs from existing
scholarship in notable ways. First, neither Dugan and Komives nor Campbell et al. isolated
the experiences of international students in their studies. Additionally, neither of these
studies indicated that mentorship by a faculty member or student affairs professional
was significantly different in the positive direction than that from a peer, which was the
major finding of the current study. Indeed, these findings underscore the unique needs
international students may have in U.S. higher education contexts and the importance
of both research and practice that seeks to understand these differences relative to what
may be useful to the general domestic student population of a particular campus. These
unique needs may be supported by other work that has identified how students from
different racial backgrounds benefited from different types of mentors (Dugan et al., 2013).
Similarly, Kodama and Dugan (2013) noted that when disaggregating data by race, different
predictors emerge by racial group for students’ leadership self-efficacy outcomes.
Although the current study offered additional insights about the roles of mentors in
international students’ leadership development trajectories, there are many questions
left unanswered that could be explored in future research. First, the current study
did not explore how these significant mentorship relationships were established. Were
these relationships intentionally fostered or were they organic? Understanding the
mechanisms underlying the formation of these mentorship relationships could greatly
inform future practice. Second, future research could investigate various contextual
influences that support or detract from international students establishing significant
mentorship relationships that contribute to leadership development. Environmental
contexts such as living on or off campus, being involved in campus organizations, or
participating in research with professors are all possible situations in which students may
connect with faculty or student affairs staff in meaningful ways that could be assessed
in future studies. Finally, leadership in this study is conceptualized through a theoretical
framework developed in the United States, the social change model of leadership (HERI,
1996). Although there is evidence of the cross-cultural transferability of this form of
leadership (Dugan, Rossetti Morosini, & Beazley, 2011), it would be useful in future
research to better understand the utility of this form of leadership from the perspective of
international graduates, both those who remain in the United States and those who may
return to their home countries or other nations.
Several implications for practice are evident from the findings in the current study. First,
results presented here demonstrated the important role that faculty and student affairs
mentors may play for international students and their leadership development. This
finding speaks to the importance of campuses structuring international student programs
and services to intentionally foster students’ meaningful connections with professional
role models early on. This could be achieved through formal mentorship programs with
faculty and staff, or even in terms of workshops that provide international students with
tangible skills for how to identify and foster such mentorship relationships. Second,
peer mentorship may be an important tool for helping international students acclimate
and adjust to their host institution (Thomson & Esses, 2016), yet results of the current
study suggested that this should not be an end point for how institutions conceptualize
mentorship for international students, particularly if leadership development outcomes
are important. Finally, while both faculty and student affairs professionals emerged
as important mentors in the current study, the percentages of international students
who cited a student affairs staff member as their most significant campus mentor were
relatively low (ranging from a low of 9.3% during senior year and a high of 14.4% during
sophomore year). This raises the question as to what may be behind these numbers.
Are student affairs units doing enough to adequately internationalize their support and
services to connect with and appeal to the needs of international students? Given how
different student services can look at institutions around the globe, are student affairs
practitioners doing enough on U.S. campuses to translate their roles to international
students who may not have a frame of reference from their own national contexts? These
are questions worthy of consideration, particularly given the important role of student
affairs mentorship for international students as identified in the current study.
Conclusion
Current and historical trend data suggest that international students will continue to
represent a significant portion of the U.S. higher education community (IIE, 2016). As the
numbers of international students who choose to study in the United States continues
to rise, we are offered the opportunity in higher education organizations to reflect on
the quality of the experience we are offering international students. As the current study
revealed, international students may face unique needs in their pathways to the promises
of U.S. higher education, in this case, leadership development outcomes. Specifically,
international students’ leadership development benefitted from mentors who were faculty
members or student affairs professionals rather than other students. This finding is more
nuanced than previous similar research investigating leadership development of domestic
students. Moving forward, both research and practice must continue to investigate the
unique aspects of international student experiences that support value-added elements
of their collegiate experiences. This is a critical component of ensuring international
students are receiving an equitable and high quality experience while abroad.
References
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Campbell, C. M., Smith, M., Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2012). Mentors and college
student leadership outcomes: The importance of position and process. The Review of
Higher Education, 35(4), 595–625.
Collier, D. A., Rosch, D. M., & Houston, D. A. (2017). Effects of participation in formal
leadership training in international students compared to domestic students: A national
study. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(2), 148–165.

Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001). Developmental
outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College
Student Development, 42(1), 15–27.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. Jossey Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Dugan, J. P., Garland, J. L., Jacoby, B., & Gasiorski, A. (2008). Understanding commuter
student self-efficacy for leadership: A within-group analysis. NASPA Journal, 45(2), 282–
310.
Dugan, J. P., Kodama, C., Correia, B., & Associates (2013). Multi-Institutional Study of
Leadership insight report: Leadership program delivery.
Dugan, J. P. & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students:
Findings from a national study. A report from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership.
College Park, MD.
Dugan, J. P. & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students’ capacities for socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 525–549.
Dugan, J. P., Morosini, A. M. R., & Beazley, M. R. (2011). Cultural transferability of socially
responsible leadership: Findings from the United States and Mexico. Journal of College
Student Development, 52(4), 456–474.
Fischer, K. (2012). ’Fess up: Foreign students are cash cows. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Garcia, G. A., Huerta, A. H., Ramirez, J. J., & Patrón, O. E. (2017). Contexts that matter to the
leadership development of Latino male college students: A mixed methods perspective.
Journal of College Student Development, 58(1), 1–18.
Gautam, C., Lowery, C. L., Mays, C., & Durant, D. (2016). Challenges for global learners:
A qualitative study of the concerns and difficulties of international students. Journal of
Education, 10(2), 157–172.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 669–692.
Karram, G. L. (2013). International students as lucrative markets or vulnerable
populations: A critical discourse analysis of national and institutional events in four
nations. Canadian and International Education, 42(1), 1–13.
Kodama, C. M. & Dugan, J. P. (2013). Leveraging leadership efficacy for college students:
Disaggregating data to examine unique predictors by race. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 46(2), 184–201.
Lee, J. J. (2010). International students’ experiences and attitudes at a US host institution:
Self-reports and future recommendations. Journal of Research in International
Education, 9(1), 66–84.
discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409.
Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Mentoring
impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 10(3), 409–429.
Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). Do fraternities and sororities enhance
socially responsible leadership? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(3),
267–284.
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. E., &
P.T.Terenzini (2016). How college affects students (Volume 3): 21st century evidence that
higher education works. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Monitor, I. C. E. F. (2017). OECD charts a slowing of international mobility growth.
Moores, L. & Popadiuk, N. (2011). Positive aspects of international student transitions: A
qualitative inquiry. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 291–306.
((n.d, N.) The United States of America benefits from international students: 2015-2016
fact sheet.
Nguyen, D. H. K. (2016). Student success through leadership self-efficacy: A comparison of
international and domestic students. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 829–842.
Oaks, D. J., Duckett, K., Suddeth, T., & Kennedy-Phillips, L. (2013). Leadership development
and the African American male college student experience. Journal of College &
Character, 14(4), 331–340.
Owen, J. E. (2009). A snapshot of collegiate leadership programs: Data and implications
from the. volume 16.
Owens, D. L., Srivastava, P., & Feerasta, A. (2011). Viewing international students as state
stimulus potential: Current perceptions and future possibilities. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 21(2), 157–179.
Reynolds, A. L. & Constantine, M. G. (2007). Cultural adjustment difficulties and career
development of international college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(3), 338–
350.
Riutta, S. & Teodorescu, D. (2014). Leadership development on a diverse campus. Journal
of College Student Development, 55(8), 830–836.
Roberts, D. C. (2007). Deeper learning in leadership: Helping college students find the
potential within. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Roberts, D. C. (2017). Transitions and transformations in leadership. pages 5–16, San
Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Rosch, D., Ogolsky, B., & Stephens, C. M. (2017). Trajectories of student leadership
development through training: An analysis by gender, race, and prior exposure. Journal
of College Student Development, 58(8), 1184–1200.
Shalka, T. R. (2017). The impact of mentorship on leadership development outcomes of
international students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(2), 136–148.
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International students: A vulnerable student
population. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46.
Stein, S. & Andreotti, V. D. O. (2016). Cash, competition, or charity: International students
and the global imaginary. Higher Education, 72, 225–239.
Suspitsyna, T. & Shalka, T. R. (in press). The Chinese international student as a
(post)colonial other: An analysis of cultural representations in a U.S. media discourse.
The Review of Higher Education.

Thomson, C. & Esses, V. M. (2016). Helping the transition: Mentorship to support
international students. in Canada. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 873–886.
Tyree, T. M. (1998). Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible leadership
using the social change model of leadership development. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(6). AAT 983693.
Urban, E. L. & Palmer, L. B. (2014). International students as a resource for
internationalization of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education,
18(4), 305–324.
Wagner, W. & Mathison, P. (2015). Connecting to communities: Powerful pedagogies for
leading for social change. volume 145, pages 85–96, San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Yan, K. & Berliner, D. C. (2011). An examination of individual level factors in stress and
coping processes: Perspectives of Chinese international students in the United States.
Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 523–542.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and
American student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 76(2), 209–231.
Author biography
Tricia R Shalka is an assistant professor in the higher education program at the Warner
School of Education & Human Development at the University of Rochester. Her research
interests include the impacts of trauma on college students, leadership development, and
Chloe S. Corcoran is a PhD student in the higher education program at the Warner School
of Education & Human Development at the University of Rochester. Her research interests
include diversity and inclusion, international education, and the concepts of space and
place in higher education.
Brian T. Magee is an associate director of Wilson Commons Student Activities and a

doctoral student at the Warner School of Education & Human Development, both at
the University of Rochester. His research interests focus on college student leadership
development through programming, mentorship, and intentional experiential learning
experiences.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 111–128
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.263
ojed.org/jis
Shared Experiences and Resilience of

Cultural Heritage: Chinese Students’
Social Interaction with Non-Host
Nationals in the United States
Yang Liua and Yue Dongb
Abstract: Compared to the role of communication with host nationals in promoting migrating
individuals’ acculturation, Chinese students’ interaction with non-host nationals has not received
enough attention due to the notion of dualism. The theorization of acculturation underscored by
dualism has been challenged by a holistic viewpoint that considers acculturation as an additive
and integrative process. Attending to the disparities of two theoretical perspectives, this study
examined Chinese students’ acculturation in the United States. The research findings revealed that
the shared experiences among Chinese students and the resilience of their cultural heritage made
their communication with non-host nationals necessary. Therefore, a more diverse environment is
suggested to be created by American universities and colleges to enable the social support among
Keywords: acculturation, Chinese international students, cultural heritage, shared

experiences
Introduction
Acculturation is often examined within the realm of dualism, which assumes that
migrating individuals’ maintenance of their home cultures and acquisition of the host
cultures are negotiated in dichotomous categories such as either/or (Liu, 2015). In
this context, migrating individuals’ identification with the host cultures and their
communication with host nationals are prioritized, and this identification and the
communication with host nationals are believed to benefit their psychological well-
being by facilitating successful intercultural adaptation (Berry, 1997; Berry & Sam, 1997;
Gudykunst, 1985, 1988, 1995; Kim, 1988, 2001). By contrast, these migrating individuals’
ethnic identity and communication with their co-nationals or co-ethnics are discouraged,
a Beijing Foreign Studies University.

b University of Oklahoma.
112 Liu and Dong
neglected, and even viewed as barriers to the formation of the host cultural identity,
especially beyond their initial phase of sojourn (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015).
The complexity and depth of global migration have challenged the aforementioned
dualistic thinking (Liu, 2015; Xu, 2013). From a holistic perspective, cultural identity is
viewed as a location of fusion in which different cultures are combined to generate cultural
hybridity or multiculturalism, rather than demolishing local tradition and culture (Ben-
Rafael & Sternberg, 2001; Berger & Huntington, 2003; Bhatia, 2007; Geertz, 1977; Kramer,
2000; Liu, 2015). Under this circumstance, studies on migrating individuals’ acculturation
are suggested to consider their identification with the host cultures and maintenance
of home cultures to complement each other as the products of dialectical processes
(Hecht, 1993; Xu, 2013). Additionally, migrating individuals’ communication with their
co-nationals or co-ethnics is found to be positively associated with their psychological
well-being (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Compared to
the dualistic perspective that is prevalent in intercultural communication, the viewpoint
that recognizes the value of and rationale behind migrating individuals’ maintenance
of cultural heritage receives less attention (Liu, 2015). Focusing on the discrepancies
of the dualistic and holistic theoretical perspectives, this study compares cross-cultural
adaptation theory and cultural fusion theory embedded in the exploration of 25 Chinese
students’ acculturation in the United States.
Literature Review
Overview of International Students’ Acculturation
Against the backdrop of globalization, education has been commodified on a global scale
in an unprecedented way. To cope with the changes brought by their relocation to a
different cultural environment, international students often go through acculturation,
which can lead to bidirectional change emerging from one culture’s first-hand contact
with the other (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Literature focusing on international
students’ acculturation tends to map out these migrating individuals’ acculturative
stressors (Smith & Khawaja, 2011). Among all acculturative stressors, the language
barrier is considered a major prediction of international students’ acculturative stress
and/or depression in host countries (C. P. Chen, 1999; Dao, Lee, & Chang, 2007; Duru
& Poyrazli, 2007; Sumer, Poyrazli, & Grahame, 2008; Trice, 2004; Yeh & Inose, 2003).
International students’ limited linguistic competency in the second language can intensify
their academic stress in the educational environment, and further expose them to
educational stressors, which makes their adaptation to a new educational environment
more challenging (Hashim & Yang, 2003; Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003; Rasmi, Safdar,
& Lewis, 2009). Another acculturative stressor, the sociocultural stressor, is associated
with international students’ limited capabilities of establishing a new social network
after leaving their home cultures (Smith & Khawaja, 2011). Existing research reveals
that international students with personality traits such as anxiety and introversion are
negatively associated with their sociocultural and psychological adaptation (Brisset,
Safdar, Lewis, & Sabatier, 2010; Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006; Ying & Han, 2006).
Additionally, the cultural distance between international students’ home cultures and the
Shared Experiences and Resilience of Cultural Heritage 113
host cultures, together with their limited linguistic competence in the second language,
can impede their capabilities of establishing friendships with host nationals, and thus
generate their feelings of loneliness and isolation (Berry, 2003; McLachlan & Justice,
2009; Mori, 2000; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Ying & Han, 2006). The last acculturative stressor
encountered by international students is related to perceived discrimination in the host
cultures (Smith & Khawaja, 2011). International students “from Asia, Africa, India, Latin
America, and the Middle East often report significant perceived discrimination compared
to domestic students or European international students” (Hanassab, 2006; Lee & Rice,
2007; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007, as cited from Smith & Khawaja, 2011, p. 704).
International Students’ Communication During Acculturation

Disputable Communication with Non-Host Nationals
To cope with the aforementioned acculturative stressors, international students are
expected to actively interact with host nationals to achieve the successful acculturation
(Berry 1997; Berry & Sam 1997; Gudykunst, 1985, 1988, 1995; Kim 1988, 2001, 2015).
Owing to dualism, migrating individuals’ development of the host cultural identity
operates contrary to their maintenance of the home cultural identity during the process of
acculturation. Therefore, international students’ communication with non-host nationals
(their co-nationals or co-ethnics and international fellows) is ignored and even viewed
as the hindrance to their intercultural adaptation (Liu, 2015). In order to successfully
achieve the goal of acculturation, it is suggested that international students spend more
time with host nationals and engage less in social gatherings with their co-nationals or co-
ethnics, which is deemed to impede their enhancement of intercultural communication
competence (Citron, 1996; Kitsantas, 2004; Pitts, 2009).
Disputing the dualistic perspective, some scholars stress that the role played by
migrating individuals’ communication with non-host nationals cannot be overlooked
in terms of providing them long-term social support in host countries. For instance,
Ward and Kennedy (1993) reported that satisfaction with co-national relations strongly
predicted psychological adjustment of sojourning students in New Zealand. Berry, Kim,
Minde, and Mok (1987) revealed that Korean immigrants in Canada who had close
friendships with their co-nationals experienced less stress. Emiko and Loh (2006) stated
that Asian sojourning students in Australia who had more ties with their international
fellows conducted better intercultural adjustment in general.
Two Competing Theories of Communication With Non-Host Nationals

Among influential scholarly elaborations of acculturation, cross-cultural adaptation the-
ory provides a representative dualistic description of migrating individuals’ commu-
nication in host cultures (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015). Placing adaptation at the
intersection between the individual and the environment, this theory states that any
individual who steps into a different culture will move along a unidirectional path of
stress–adaptation–growth towards a universal end that targets the formation of intercul-
tural personhood, improvement of individuals’ psychological health, and an increase in
their functional fitness in the host environment (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015).
114 Liu and Dong
Underscored by dualism, cross-cultural adaptation theory argues that migrating

individuals have to involve themselves in the interplay of acculturation and deculturation
with the goal of attaining successful assimilation into the host cultures. Acculturation,
which refers to migrating individuals’ acquisition of new cultural patterns and practices,
will inevitably lead to deculturation, defined as unlearning of some of their old cultural
habits (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015). Acculturation and deculturation of migrating
individuals, according to cross-cultural adaptation theory, are enacted through separation
from co-national or ethnic groups, mentally and physically (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015).
Therefore, migrating individuals’ ties with their co-nationals or co-ethnics is considered
to function as the pulling force during their assimilation into the host culture (Kim, 1988,
2001, 2011, 2015). To better assimilate into the host culture, individuals should maximize
their acculturation through unlearning some of their original cultural habits and staying
away from their strong ethnic ties with their co-nationals or co-ethnics (Kim, 1988, 2001,
2011, 2015).
Disagreeing with cross-cultural adaptation theory, Kramer (2000, 2003a, 2003b,
2010, 2011) proposed cultural fusion theory. This theory brings into intercultural
communication the concept of “horizon,” elaborated by Gadamer (1991) as “the range
of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point” (p.
301). As socialized human beings, individuals have been endowed with certain horizons
by their historically determined situatedness that comprises their cultures and traditions.
Coming from the same culture, migrating individuals share the same horizon with their co-
nationals or co-ethnics. Additionally, the relocation into a new cultural milieu will expose
sojourners and immigrants to many challenges and obstacles, which are shared by other
migrating individuals from different countries. Due to the same or similar historically
determined situatedness, migrating individuals can find common understandings and
interpretations that emerge from their relocation to host countries.
Unlike the dualistic acculturation depicted by cross-cultural adaptation theory, cultural
fusion theory refuses to place migrating individuals’ interaction with host nationals in
opposition to their communication with non-host nationals. According to cultural fusion
theory, acculturation is an additive and integrative process rather than a zero-sum closed
system (Croucher & Kramer, 2016; Kramer, 2000, 2003a, 2003b). During the process of
acculturation, migrating individuals can maintain their home cultures, while at the same
time fusing aspects of the host culture into their original cultural identities to create a
fused cultural identity (Croucher & Kramer, 2016; Kramer, 2000, 2003a, 2003b, 2010, 2011).
Therefore, migrating individuals’ niches and differences should be celebrated during their
negotiation with the host culture, rather than being abandoned (Callahan, 2004; Kramer,
2000, 2011).
Focusing on the aforementioned disparities between cross-cultural adaptation theory
and cultural fusion theory, this study will examine Chinese students’ acculturation in the
U.S. and explore the meaning of their communication with non-host nationals in America.
Therefore, this study will address the following questions:
• In what aspects do Chinese students in the U.S. feel the gap between themselves and
Americans?
• Why can Chinese students not adapt to the American culture and environment in
these aspects?
Research Method
Participants
This study attends to compare cross-cultural adaptation theory and cultural fusion theory
through exploring Chinese students’ communication with non-host nationals during their
acculturation in the US. Therefore, 25 Chinese students who were studying in a large
public university located in Southwest America at the time of interviews were recruited
for this study, considering the fact that their experiences of studying and living in the US.
for an extended period can provide rich insights into Chinese students’ acculturation in
this country. These participants ranged from 21 to 31 years old, with an average age of 26
years old, and had lived in the U.S. for 2–5 years, with the average sojourning length of
3.5 years by the time of interviews. Among these participants, 13 of them were females
and 12 males; 11 were master students and 14 doctoral students; 13 majored in social
science and 12 in science and engineering; 21 studied with either teaching assistantships
or research assistantships and four at their own expense. In order to protect their privacy,
the researchers adopted pseudonyms in the research.
Data Collection
Relying on snowball sampling, researchers recruited all of the participants through their
social network in the same university. Snowball sampling is appropriate for this study
since it is well-suited to studying people who have certain attributes in common (Lindlof
& Taylor, 2011). For each participant, a semi-structured interview was conducted by
the first author in their mother language, Mandarin, and in their desired locations.
Semi-structured interviews were adopted by this study for two reasons. One is that the
interviewer can ask planned questions based on an interview guide, and the other is that
the interviewees are given more freedom to provide different descriptions of their own
experiences from which the interviewer can ask unplanned questions to explore different
feelings and thoughts (Fontana & Frey, 2005; Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
During the semi-structured interviews, each participant was asked about their
communication embedded in their acculturation in the US. The interview questions were
mainly developed based on two discrepancies between cross-cultural adaptation theory
and cultural fusion theory. One was whether migrating individuals should keep away from
their co-nationals or co-ethnics during the acculturation, and the other was whether their
original culture can be unlearned during the acculturation. These questions included what
their initial impression of the US was before they came; what differences or challenges
they encountered since they came to this university; how they perceived and responded
to these differences or challenges; whether they ever considered adapting to the host
environment; if they did, how they conducted the adaptation; what their social circles in
the US looked like; and the rationale behind their preferences. The interview questions
were pilot tested, and then revised based on feedback.
116 Liu and Dong
Before the interview started, the first author explained to each participant the purpose
and nature of this study, and provided them with a consent form with written explanations
of this study. All participants signed the informed consent before interviews. With the
approval of each participant, each interview was digitally recorded. Also, notetaking was
utilized to record each participant’s nonverbal information such as body language and
facial expression. The length of each interview was 60–90 minutes, and 25 interviews were
completed, ultimately resulting in 28 hours of interviews in total.
Data Analysis
Audiorecorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by the first author,
who is a native Chinese speaker. Data analysis was guided by the constant comparative
method, which compares and contrasts each incident with other incidents, empirical
data with concepts, concepts with categories, and categories with categories, in order
to reach higher levels of abstraction and advanced conceptualizations in three steps
(Charmaz, 2006). First, all data were read and re-read to locate two major common themes
across all the interviews: obstacles to communicating with America and attachment to
the Chinese identity. Second, data under these two themes were further compared and
contrasted across all the interviews. Five subthemes emerged from this step, namely
the linguistic gap between Chinese students and Americans, Chinese students’ limited
American cultural literacy, American ’ lack of empathy, Chinese students’ pride in Chinese
culture, and Chinese students’ sense of patriotism. Finally, excerpts under each subtheme
were analyzed and combined with their contexts in the original transcripts. It was revealed
that these subthemes made Chinese students’ communication with non-host nationals
necessary during their acculturation in the US. Additionally, memos were written down
through the coding process to keep a record of research reflections at different times. The
second author, who is also a native Chinese speaker, verified the accuracy of the first
author’s analysis. For any disagreement on the analyses, both researchers checked back
with participants via email and invited them to examine whether their experiences were
accurately interpreted. Based on their feedback, revisions were made.
Results
Compared to previous intercultural communication research that highlighted the
importance of migrating individuals’ communication with host nationals, this study
attended to the value of and rationale behind their communication with non-host
nationals. The interviewed Chinese students’ experiences in the US provided strong
evidence to support cultural fusion theory on two dimensions: their obstacles to
communicating with Americans and their attachment to Chinese identity.
Obstaclesto Communicating With Americans

This study revealed that there were systematic obstacles to Chinese students’ communi-
cation with Americans, even if some of them had already lived in the US for 5 years. These
obstacles were attributed to three reasons, namely the linguistic gap between Chinese stu-
dents and Americans, Chinese students’ limited American cultural literacy, and Ameri-
cans’ lack of empathy.
Linguistic Gap Between Chinese Students and Americans

Limited linguistic proficiency in the second language makes many international students
feel unable to express themselves fully, and thus prevents them from taking more active
roles in communication (Corder, 1983; Suarez, 2002). As long as the communication
between sojourning students and host nationals was thwarted by the former’s limited
linguistic proficiency, the latter’s reactions, verbally and non-verbally, would separate
the former from the mainstream society. The highlighted difference, embodied in
limited English proficiency, constantly reminded these sojourning students that they were
linguistically incompetent Others in the US.
In this study, none of the interviewed Chinese students were English majors before
relocating to the US. While most of these Chinese students had passed American
university’s admission requirements of TOEFL and GRE, their listening and speaking skills
were often less than ideal. For them, low proficiency of spoken English had reduced
their desire to further communicate with Americans. As one student, Wei, suggested,
he felt uncomfortable when he spoke in English with his American colleagues in the lab
sometimes.
When I communicate with Americans, even I only had a small grammar

mistake in my sentence; they will definitely ask me to correct myself. It’s
annoying. So I hang out a lot with other international students. It’s not
like I don’t want to communicate with Americans, the reason is not that.
I feel other international students treat me as one of them, even if my
English is horrible, they still can understand what I am saying.
Wei’s less-than-fluent oral English made him seem to be less competent than his American
lab mates. Although his advisor and colleagues were pleased with his research expertise,
Wei still felt that he had become an “invisible” and “forgotten” person outside the research
setting. To Wei, the absence of recognition took a toll on his self-esteem. As a result, he
spent a lot of time with Turkish students in his lab. Wei explained that although they could
only chat with each other in “broken” English, there was a sense of “camaraderie” that led
to recognition among them.
Chinese Students’ Limited American Cultural Literacy

The interviewed Chinese students’ feeling of being the Other was further heightened by
their difficulties of understanding culturally bound conversations with Americans. Due to
the culturally bound linguistic barriers, they often felt excluded from American students’
social circles. No matter how hard they studied English, there was always an intangible
cultural barrier in front of these Chinese students, because they were not born and raised
in American culture. As Dong explained, although he could have “academia-related
conversation” with Americans, whenever the conversations involved culturally bound
topics, he would instantly “hit a wall.” Dong explained that the most “embarrassing” times
118 Liu and Dong
often followed his American colleagues’ jokes. The different cultural perceptions about
humor made Dong a “dull” person in his American colleagues’ eyes. The slow or absent
reaction to the punchlines had pushed Dong further away from his daily communication
with Americans. Dong’s sentiment was shared by other participants, who claimed to be
outsiders in American culture. Ru stated:
American students jump from one topic to another one too fast. And
their topics cover different areas, such as sports and politics. I found
Americans like to talk about sports and politics. But I couldn’t follow
them. I knew nothing about these topics. Therefore, the topic which
makes them feel funny, in my eyes, is not that funny. It’s not like I am
unable to laugh; they and I just have very different punchlines.
The culturally bound linguistic differences between the interviewed Chinese students and
their American counterparts were attributed to the former’s limited American cultural
literacy, which was caused by their relocation to a new semantic field. While their previous
knowledge of American culture could provide these Chinese students with some forms of
basic cultural navigation, it alone was far from enough for them to thoroughly understand
American culture. Therefore, they often struggled with small talk with Americans.
Consequently, they were isolated from the mainstream society as outsiders in the US, and
this separation further aggravated their loneliness (X. Chen, 2004). In this context, Chinese
students tended to form their small circles via intra-ethnic communication in the U.S.,
which could provide them with a sense of belonging and reduce their loneliness in this
country.
Americans’ Lack of Empathy

Empathy, which refers to an individual’s capability of recognizing emotions that are
being experienced by others, is based on the similar or shared experience among people.
However, the interviewed Chinese students claimed to have very few commonalities with
Americans as a result of their different experiences and discrepancies in cultural value.
Dong expressed that international students in his department could not get sufficient
support and attention. Whenever Dong felt stressed or frustrated, he usually sought
emotional support from other Chinese students and his Indonesian classmate. Dong
stated that he did not turn to his American counterparts because he did not feel these
Americans, who had never been international students before, were able to understand
what international students went through.
Besides different experiences, cultural value discrepancies also accounted for Ameri-
cans’ lack of empathy toward the interviewed Chinese students. This study suggested that
Chinese students and Americans perceived “friendship” vastly different from each other.
From the Confucian perspective, friendship means a collective identity that places more
emphasis on interdependency and pays less attention to the independence and privacy
of individuals (X. Chen, 2004). Therefore, people with a Confucian cultural background
believe in the mutual reliance among friends and tend to view friendship as a consistent
persistence once friendly behaviors are repeatedly shown (X. Chen, 2004). By contrast,
Americans distinguish friendship from repeated friendly behaviors. Owing to different
perceptions of friendship, the interviewed Chinese students claimed that they often felt
confused by Americans’ unstable “on-and-off styled” friendly behaviors displayed to them.
For example, Mei once considered two of her American lab mates as friends, because they
took care of her so well when she first came to the US.
They took me to a lot of places for grocery, to buy a cellphone, and to buy
many other things. So initially I considered them as my friends. For me,
friends mean mutual help as long as you need. But for them, if you ask
them for help and they do not want to do that, they will say No directly,
even if they have the time and the capability. For Chinese, we will help
each other as long as we turn a finger to help. Maybe that is how they
treat friends. I do not know. It is hard for me to make friends with them.
For Ru, she said she was a little bit uncomfortable about the different meaning of
friendship in the US.
For example, yesterday we chatted very happily, and I thought we were

friends. But the next day, when we run into each other, it seems that
nothing has ever happened. The closeness I had yesterday did not exist.
In China, we should behave like yesterday, and remain as friends. Maybe
Chinese people more mutually rely on each other. Americans prefer
more freedom and independence in the friendship. I do not know. But I
felt a little bit uncomfortable.
Consequently, these Chinese students either communicated with other Chinese people or
interacted with other international students. These two types of communication could
provide Chinese students stable social support, both emotionally and instrumentally. As
Cheng said:
I hang out a lot with other Chinese people or other international students
who had similar or shared experiences with me. I did not have to worry
about my incapability of expressing myself completely and precisely. I
know I did not fit into American culture. It is true. But I am not frustrated.
As long as communication is there, I feel good, and I can enjoy my life. If
I am the only international students, and all other people around me are
Americans, I will feel stressful and marginalized.
The impact of intra-ethnic communication on migrating individuals’ acculturation is one

discrepancy between cross-cultural adaptation theory and cultural fusion theory. Cross-
cultural adaptation theory argues that although migrating individuals’ interaction with
their co-nationals or co-ethnics is considered to be helpful in the initial stage, such
an intra-ethnic communication is still perceived as detrimental to these individuals’
successful assimilation in the long run; therefore, they are suggested to stay away from
their co-nationals or co-ethnics, and focus on communication with host nationals to
achieve the satisfactory acculturation (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015). On the contrary,
cultural fusion theory claims that ethnic differences make life more meaningful (Kramer,
120 Liu and Dong
2000). According to the interviewed Chinese students in this study, no matter how
long they had already lived abroad, they always encountered the preceding obstacles
that hindered their communication with Americans on a deep level. Therefore, these
Chinese students shifted their attention to their communication with non-Americans, who
could better help them relieve the loneliness, and provide them with more stable and
stronger emotional and instrumental social supports. Although some Chinese students
developed friendships with their American counterparts, none of them stayed away from
other Chinese people. As cultural fusion theory state , the interviewed Chinese students’
differences should be maintained and celebrated because these differences can add
new meanings to these migrating individuals’ acculturation, which is an additive and
integrative progress rather than a zero-sum process toward a universally desired result
or outcome (Kramer, 2000). Therefore, it is concluded that this study supported the
statement of cultural fusion theory, and refuted claims made by cross-cultural adaptation
theory.
Attachment to the Chinese Identity

The second discrepancy between cross-cultural adaptation theory and cultural fusion
theory resides in migrating individuals’ possibility of unlearning their original cultures. All
of the interviewed Chinese students in this research denied the possibility of unlearning
their Chinese identity during their acculturation in the US. To all of them, “being a
Chinese” would never be changed no matter how long they had stayed in the US. According
to this study, these Chinese students’ attachment to the Chinese identity was exemplified
on two aspects: their pride in Chinese culture and their sense of patriotism.
Pride in Chinese Culture

Several participants displayed their pride in Chinese culture. Although they had already
studied and lived in the US, their cultural pride was not only persevered but also overtly
manifested on some occasions. Unlike many other Chinese students, Wei always wore T-
shirts with Chinese characters in a conspicuous fashion. He jokingly said that he was like
a walking billboard of Chinese culture. When he was asked why he chose those unique
T-shirts, Wei said:
I am so afraid of being considered as ABC (American-born Chinese).

I am a native of Beijing. If I am mistaken for an ABC, I would feel
that I lost my fan’er (èŇČåĎ£ in Mandarin, modus operandi in direct
translation). I spent my childhood and adolescence in hutongs (èČaå ˛ ŘŇ
in Mandarin, which refers to alleys composed of a narrow laneway and
street in Beijing) and grew up there. I got my fan’er from there. I chose
those T-shirts on purpose. I purchased them before I left China, and I
wanted to emphasize my own cultural identity here.
During the interview, Wei emphasized his “fan’er” several times. As a term borrowed from
the Peking Opera glossary, fan’er is used to describe a person’s sense of style, manner,
bearing, and demeanor in North China. The semantic meaning of having fan’er in
Mandarin is similar to “having a unique style” in English. As Wei disclosed, his fan’er is
related to his cultural upbringing in Beijing (the political and cultural center of China),
and he gained his fan’er from hutongs in this city. As one of the most well-known Chinese
cultural symbols, hutong is considered as a medium into which China’s long history and
Chinese people’s wisdom are condensed (Hilary du, Bauer, Lo, & Rui, 2005). Besides the
sense of cultural pride in style, Chinese cuisine also provided Wei with a strong sense of
pride. When he was asked whether he cooked western food during his spare time, Wei
changed his tone and said in an exaggerating way:
Western food? It is too easy. Everyone can make a steak. There is no skill
at all in Western cuisines.
It is clear that Wei’s preference of Chinese food was strongly associated with his cultural
pride. During the interview, Wei displayed many photos of food he made, all of which
was typical Chinese cuisine that usually required many steps and longer cooking times. In
Wei’s eyes, Chinese cuisine was much more sophisticated than Western cuisine, and this
complexity was associated with cultural pride.
Similar to Wei, Ying showed her pride in Chinese cuisine. When she talked about her
impression of the US and Americans around her, she said:
I feel that many Americans are living a very pitiful life, especially those
living in this small town. The food they eat is too unhealthy. They cannot
afford the food of high quality, so they go to Walmart and buy a lot of junk
food, such as chips, cheese, bread, and drinks. Children grow up with
the unhealthy food, and many adults suffer from obesity. All of these is
because there is no way for them to eat the healthy food like Chinese. I
personally still like Chinese food.
Different from Western cuisine, the Chinese diet is famous for being “well-balanced,
high in fiber and low in saturated fats” (Lv & Brown, 2010, p. 1). On the contrary, the
American fast food and semi-manufactured food sold in supermarkets contain too many
fats and sugar, which can lead to obesity and other illnesses. Moreover, eating in China
functions as more than consuming goods; it carries more social meanings as a social
activity (Kirkendall, 2010). For example, Ying said hot pot could provide a good social
occasion for her to chat with friends.
I love hot-pot. It gives me a feeling of warmth. Just imagine. A big group

of friends sit together and wait for the pot in the center. We wait together
and can have to chat at the same time. You know? That feeling makes me
very warm. But the eating habits here (the US) are not as warm as our
Chinese way.
For Ru, she not only wanted to keep Chinese culture to herself but also expected to pass
it on to her children in the future. Ru hoped that she could find a job in the US after her
graduation. She tried very hard to improve her oral English and hoped that one day she
could thoroughly understand American culture and completely understand each sentence
122 Liu and Dong
spoken by Americans. However, she still admitted that she felt proud of Chinese culture
when facing American culture.
I am so proud of Chinese culture. In my eyes, we do have a superior

culture in comparison to the US. Yes, I want to stay in this country with
my boyfriend. It is possible that my children will be born and raised in
this country. But I do hope my children can learn Mandarin and Chinese
traditional culture. I cannot imagine what I will do if my children have
no idea of how to speak Mandarin.
Ying expressed similar concerns as Ru. She also associated Mandarin with the Chinese
identity, which was an important thing that she wanted to pass on to her children in the
future.
I really cannot imagine that one day I have a baby who is born and raised
in this country. How can I raise my children in this country where English
is the dominant language? What if my children refuse to learn Mandarin?
A Sense of Patriotism
Patriotism is defined as individuals’ attachment to their nations (Kosterman & Feshbach,
1989). Besides the pride in Chinese culture, the interviewed Chinese students’ attachment
to the Chinese identity was also exemplified on their patriotism, even if they had a higher
level of English proficiency and a better understanding of American culture and society.
For example, Mu’Yan, who comes from an upper-middle class family in Shanghai (one
of the most developed cities in China), used to have a Caucasian American girlfriend.
However, their romantic relationship gradually deteriorated due to his ex-girlfriend’s
“constant unreasonable China-bashing.” According to Mu’Yan, most of his ex-girlfriend’s
portraits of China were “willful arrogance and pure rudeness.” He told the researchers:
There was one time, actually multiple times, she said to me that “I will
never go to China. I do not like that poor and messy country.” At first, I
did not react to that, that’s just nonsense, and I loved her. But one time, I
guess her mean comments finally triggered me. I told her that if she does
not like China, that’s fine with me; she does not have to go there. I will
not invite her there. No matter how many problems China has, it is my
motherland, my country, and my home. China is part of me, etched in
my gene. It is highly improper for her to criticize my country in such an
arrogant and rude manner.
To a certain degree, Mu’Yan had acculturated to the new environment in the US. Besides
dating American girls, he was also well-versed in American culture. However, his strong
sense of patriotism urged him to defend China, and such patriotism has made him
uncomfortable even with his girlfriend.
According to cultural adaptation theory’s description, Nan and Lu might rank number
on and number two respectively among the participants in terms of their degree of
successful adaptation to American culture. Both of them were fluent in English, and their
behaviors were much more Americanized from other Chinese students’ perspective. Even
Nan’s American friends mistook him for ABC when they first met him. Although Nan
and Lu adapted well to American culture, they would still rise up to defend China against
biased judgments made by some Americans about their home country. For example, Nan
mentioned that:
I love my country. It is true that we did something wrong on some issues.

But if we did not do anything wrong and the critique was based on bias
and misinformation, I would definitely step out and argue with them.
For example, I would do a lot of cross-checking on Tibet issue, and I will
let them know you cannot criticize my country based on the one-sided
argument without doing your research about the situation.
The patriotism displayed by these participants not only reflected their sense of belonging
to a certain place but also enabled them to establish a close emotional bond with their
home country (Osborne, 2006 Rose, 1995). As a result of patriotism, the biased judgments
toward China led to these Chinese students’ strong defense of their home country. This
response was deeply rooted in their love for and pride in China, which was fostered as
a built-in mechanism through socialization (Hague & Jenkins, 2004). Even though they
embraced American culture, their identification with China and Chinese culture had never
been unlearned during their acculturation in the US.
Cross-cultural adaptation theory argues that migrating individuals’ successful accul-
turation in the host cultures requires the interplay of their acquisition of the new culture
and unlearning of their original cultural habits (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2011, 2015). However,
this argument underestimates migrating individuals’ home cultural pride and patriotism.
As the interviewed Chinese students illustrated above, their pride in Chinese culture and
their sense of patriotism made it impossible for them to abandon their original culture
to fit into American culture, especially when they were exposed to the biased judgments
made on China. Being born and raised in a specific culture provides individuals with a
perspective to explore this world. This built-in perspective will never be unlearned when
new perspectives are introduced. As cultural fusion theory states, acculturation as a learn-
ing process is additive, in which new experiences will be learned, and the original culture
still can be maintained (Croucher & Kramer, 2016; Kramer, 2000). Therefore, this study
supported cultural fusion theory and refuted cross-cultural adaptation theory.
Discussion and Conclusions

The preceding elaboration revealed that both cultural obstacles and psycho-emotional
dissonances made the interviewed Chinese students’ communication with Americans
unsatisfactory. The cultural obstacles were mainly products of these Chinese students’
insufficient English proficiency, their limited American cultural literacy, and Americans’
lack of empathy. The psycho-emotional dissonances were caused by these Chinese
students’ pride in Chinese culture, and their strong sense of patriotism. Owing to the
cultural obstacles and psycho-emotional dissonances, the interviewed Chinese students
124 Liu and Dong
couldn’t gain necessary social support in the US. Under this circumstance, it is reasonable
for them to turn to communicate with other Chinese students and international students
from different countries. The research findings reveal that if the school administrators and
educators want to improve the condition of international students, they should pay close
attention to fostering a more diverse cultural environment and showing more respect for
their attachment to their home cultures.
Acculturation is not a zero-sum game. Although participants in this study maintained
their home cultures, they still made great efforts to improve their English proficiency
and learn about every aspect of American society. However, it should be noted that
none of them did so for the successful adaptation to American culture. From these
Chinese students’ perspective, there was no need to adapt themselves to Americans
during the friend-making process; on the contrary, their firm adherence to their Chinese
identity inscribed in them a sense of pride and uniqueness, which was the key to winning
Americans’ respect. In this context, these Chinese students never avoided interacting with
non-Americans, who provided them with the necessary social support, emotionally and
instrumentally, during their acculturation in the US. Their experiences in the US echoed
cultural fusion theory, which argues that differences should be celebrated and embraced
during intercultural encounters (Kramer, 2000). Through celebrating and embracing
differences between and within cultures, the balance between host and immigrant groups
can be achieved toward the goal of making our world become more pluralistic, rather than
mechanizing of humanity into streamlined model minorities (Sandel & Chung-Hui, 2010).
Limitations
There are several limitations in this study. First, this study only used cross-sectional
design. Second, the sample size and geo-location of this study were limited to the authors’
institution. Third, the young international student population (whose age is below 18)
was not presented in this study. Thus, future research could use a multi-loci longitudinal
study design to track changes of the aforementioned cultural obstacles, and psycho-
emotional dissonances of Chinese students in the US. Future studies could also compare
the acculturation of adult Chinese students with that of teenage Chinese students in
America.
References
Ben-Rafael, E. & Sternberg, Y. (2001). Identity, culture and globalization. Brill, Leiden.
Berger, P. L. & Huntington, S. P. (2003). Many globalizations: Cultural diversity in the
contemporary world. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, 5–68.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In Chun, K. M., Organista,
P. B., & Marín, G., editors, Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied
research, pages 17–37, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative
stress. International Migration Review, 21, 490–511.
Berry, J. W. & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H.,
& Kagitcibasi, C., editors, Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, volume 3, pages 291–
329, Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.
Bhatia, S. (2007). American karma: Race, culture, and identity in the Indian diaspora.
University Press, New York: New York.
Brisset, C., Safdar, S., Lewis, J. R., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Psychological and sociocultural
adaptation of university students in France: The case of Vietnamese international
students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 413–426.
Callahan, C. (2004). Theoretical description and comparative analysis of adaptation and
fusion theories. New Orleans, LA.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Sage, London, UK.
Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and
counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49–65.
Chen, X. (2004). Sojourners and "foreigners": A study on Chinese students’ intercultural
interpersonal relationships in the United States. Education and Science Press, Beijing.
Citron, J. (1996). Short-term study abroad: Integration, third culture formation, and re-
entry. Phoenix, AZ.
Corder, S. P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G., editors,
Strategies in inter-language communication, pages 15–19, London, UK. Longman.
Cros, H. D., Bauer, T., Lo, C., & Rui, S. (2005). Cultural heritage assets in China as
sustainable tourism products: Case studies of the Hutongs and the Huanghua section
of the Great Wall. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 171–194.
Croucher, S. M. & Kramer, E. (2016). Cultural fusion theory: An alternative to acculturation.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 97–114.
Dao, T. K., Lee, D., & Chang, H. L. (2007). Acculturation level, perceived English fluency,
perceived social support level, and depression among Taiwanese international students.
College Student Journal, 41, 287–295.
Duru, E. & Poyrazli, S. (2007). Personality dimensions, psychosocial-demographic
variables, and English language competency in predicting level of acculturative stress
among Turkish international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 14,
99–110.
Emiko, S. K. & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international,
conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 30, 471–485.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political
involvement. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., editors, The Sage handbook of qualitative
research, pages 695–727, Oaks, CA. Sage.
Gadamer, H. G. (1991). Truth and method. Marshall, Trans, New York, NY.
Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural encounters.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 79–98.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Kim, Y. Y. & Gudykunst, W. B., editors,
Theories in intercultural communication, pages 123–156, Newbury Park, CA. Sage.
126 Liu and Dong
Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current status.

In Wiseman, R. L., editor, Intercultural communication competence (International and
Intercultural Communication Annual), volume 19, pages 8–58, Oaks, CA. Sage.
Hague, C. & Jenkins, P. (2004). Place identity, participation and planning. Routledge,
Oxford.
Education, 10, 157–172.
Hashim, I. H. & Yang, Z. L. (2003). Cultural and gender differences in perceiving stressors:
A cross-cultural investigation of African and Western students in Chinese colleges. Stress
and Health, 19, 217–225.
Hecht, M. L. (1993). research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication
theory of identity. Commuication Monographs, 60(1), 76–80.
Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory.
Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK.
Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks. Sage, CA.
Kim, Y. Y. (2011). Beyond cultural categories: Communication, adaptation, and
transformation. In Jackson, J., editor, Handbook of language and intercultural
communication, pages 229–243, New York, NY. Routledge.
Kim, Y. Y. (2015). Finding a “home” beyond culture: The emergence of intercultural
personhood in the globalizing world. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
46, 3–12.
Kirkendall, J. M. (2010). Eating history: Chinese American gastronomy in Hawai’i. Chinese
America: History & Perspectives, pages 123–132.
Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of college students’ goals on the
development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal,
38, 441–453.
Kosterman, R. & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic
attitudes. Political Psychology, 10(2), 257–274.
Kramer, E. (2000). Cultural fusion and the defense of difference. University Press of America,
New York, NY.
Kramer, E. (2003a). Cosmopoly: Occidentalism and the new world order. Praeger, Westport,
CT.
Kramer, E. (2003b). Gaiatsu and cultural Judo. Praeger, Westport, CT.
Kramer, E. (2010). Immigration. In Jackson, R. L. & Hogg, M. A., editors, Encyclopedia of
identity, pages 384–389, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Kramer, E. (2011). Preface. In Croucher, S. & Cronn-Mills, D., editors, Christians in France
and Britain, New York, NY: Hampton. Press.
Lindlof, T. R. & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage,
Oaks, CA.
Liu, S. (2015). Identity, hybridity and cultural home: Chinese migrants and diaspora in
multicultural societies. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, NY.
Lv, N. & Brown, J. L. (2010). Chinese American family Food systems: Impact of western
influences. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(2), 106–114.
McLachlan, D. A. & Justice, J. (2009). A grounded theory of international student well-
being. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 13, 27–32.
Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social support,
academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in the United
States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 137–157.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 78, 137–144.
Osborne, B. S. (2006). From native pines to diasporic Geese: Placing culture, setting our
sites, locating identity in a transnational Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication,
31(1), 147–175.
Pitts, M. J. (2009). Identity and the role of expectations, stress, and talk in short-
term student sojourner adjustment: An application of the integrative theory of
communication and cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 450–462.
homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The
Journal of Psychology, 141, 263–280.
Rasmi, S., Safdar, S., & Lewis, J. R. (2009). A longitudinal examination of the MIDA Model
with international students. Gdansk, Poland. Gdanskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152.
Rose, G. (1995). Distance, surface, elsewhere: a feminist critique of the space of
phallocentric self/knowledge. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13(6),
761–781.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks. Sage, CA.
Sandel, T. L. & Chung-Hui, L. (2010). Taiwan’s fifth ethnic group: A study of the
acculturation and cultural fusion of women who have married into families in Taiwan.
Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 3(3), 249–275.
Suarez, D. (2002). ESOL teacher candidates experience cultural otherness. TESOL Journal,
11(2), 19–25.
Sumer, S., Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. (2008). Predictors of depression and anxiety among
international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 429–437.
Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with
American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687.
Wang, C. C. & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial
adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53(4), 422–433.
128 Liu and Dong
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Routledge,
London, UK.
Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during
cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home.
International Journal of Psychology, 28, 129–147.
Xu, K. (2013). Theorizing difference in intercultural communication: A critical dialogic
perspective. Communication Monographs, 80(3), 379–397.
Yeh, C. J. & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social
support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, pages 15–28.
Ying, Y. W. & Han, M. Y. (2006). The contribution of personality, acculturative stressors,
and social affiliation to adjustment: A longitudinal study of Taiwanese students in the
United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 623–635.
Author biography
Yang Liu is Assistant Professor in the School of English and International Studies at Beijing
Foreign Studies University, China.
Yue Dong is ABD in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma.


Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 129–148
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.277
ojed.org/jis
Prevalence and Correlates of Depressive

Symptoms Among International
Students: Implications for University
Support Offices
Noel L. Shadowena , Ariel A. Williamsonb , Nancy G. Guerrac ,
Ravichandran Ammigand and Matthew L Drexlerd
Abstract: International students often experience significant challenges and difficulties adjusting to
their new campus and university environment abroad. As a result, understanding the unique needs
of these students has become an important priority for many university administrators and mental
health professionals amid growing health concerns faced by members of this community. This
study examines the prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms in a sample of international
students enrolled in a mid-size U.S. university. A hierarchical multiple regression model revealed
that poor English fluency, increased acculturative stress, and perceived discrimination were
associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, whereas increased social support was
associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. Implications for university administration and
support services are discussed.
Keywords: acculturative stress, depressive symptoms, international students, perceived

discrimination, social support
Introduction
As the world becomes increasingly globalized, the number of students from foreign
countries studying at U.S. universities has increased dramatically, with enrollments of
international students increasing by 85% over the past decade (Institute of International
a Center for Training, Evaluation, & Community Collaboration at the, University of Delaware.
b Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
c School of Social Ecology and Professor, Department of Psychology and Social Behavior,
University of California, Irvine.

d Office for International Students and Scholars, University of Delaware.
Corresponding author: nshadow@udel.edu

130 Shadowen et al.
Education, 2017). China and India are the two biggest “sender” countries, collectively
providing almost 50% of the international students who currently study in the United
States. The presence of international students on campus offers significant benefits
to universities. For example, international students and their dependents contributed
$36.9 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2016–2017 academic year (Association of
International Educators, 2017). More importantly, international students add significant
diversity and educational value to the academic environment on campus by bringing to
the classroom different cultural backgrounds, experiences, and worldviews and acting as
“cultural ambassadors” for their home country (Lee & Rice, 2007; Luo & Jamieson-Drake,
2013; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994). International students can play a vital role in providing
opportunities for global engagement and supporting the campus internationalization
efforts at institutions of higher education.
Despite the explosion of growth in international students studying on U.S. campuses,
especially from Asian countries, few empirical quantitative studies have examined the
challenges and difficulties associated with adjusting to life in the U.S. that these students
face (Mori, 2000; Poyrazli, Thukral, & Duru, 2010). Mori (2000) labeled international
students as “one of the most quiet, invisible, underserved groups on the American
campus” (p. 143). There is a continuing need to better understand mental health concerns
among international students, as a wide range of adjustment challenges may significantly
increase their risk for such problems (Pederson, 1991; Sumer, Poyrazli, & Grahame, 2008).
Indeed, available evidence suggests that international students are at a greater risk for
psychological problems than the general U.S. university student population (Andrade,
2006; Liu, 2009; Mori, 2000; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994). In the US, depression is one of
the most common mental health concerns. That said, little research has comprehensively
examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms among international students. A study
by Rice, Choi, Zhang, Morero, and Anderson (2012) that included only Chinese and Indian
graduate students in the US reported that 36.7% of these students met or exceeded the
clinical cut-off point on a depressive symptoms screening measure. Although it is difficult
to compare studies screening for depressive symptoms due to differing methodologies and
instruments, this rate is higher than the 11% – 30% of general U.S. college students who are
reported to screen positively for depression (American College Health Association, 2017;
Eisenberg, Gollust, Golberstein, & Hefner, 2007; Eisenberg, Hunt, & Speer, 2013; Lipson,
Gaddis, Heinze, Beck, & Eisenberg, 2015).
While some studies have found that depressive symptoms vary across regions based
on a series of different factors (e.g., Botha, Shamblaw, & Dozois, 2017; Steptoe,
Tsuda, Tanaka, & Wardle, 2007), elevated expressions of depressive symptoms among
international students may be determined by the level of internalized cultural identity
they carry from their home cultures (Chang, Jetten, Cruwys, & Haslam, 2017). Steptoe
et al. (2007) compared depressive symptoms in college students across 23 different
countries and found a pattern of higher depressive symptoms in non-Western countries,
with especially elevated rates in individuals from Pacific Asian societies. Given that
international students, particularly Asian students, may enter U.S. institutions with an
already heightened propensity for depression, it is critical to further understand the
specific challenges these students face that can support prevention and intervention
Prevalence and Correlates of Depressive Symptoms 131
initiatives. Depressive symptoms are particularly important to examine, as they are

among the most common presenting complaints for international students who seek help
from university counseling centers (Kawamoto et al., 2018; Yi, Lin, & Kishomoto, 2003).
Additionally, depressive symptoms in young adult college students have been linked to
a variety of severe negative consequences, including negative consequences related to
alcohol use and drinking (Martens et al., 2008), academic impairment (Hill, Yaraoslavsky, &
Petit, 2015), early academic drop out (Eisenberg, Golberstein, & Hunt, 2009), tobacco use,
unwanted sexual experiences, and other forms of violence (Mackenzie et al., 2012). Given
that young adulthood is a peak period for the onset of depression (Cujipers et al., 2015), it is
particularly important that universities be aware of the prevalence and potential negative
outcomes associated with depression in their students.
Literature Review
Correlates of Depressive Symptoms Among International Students
In addition to examining prevalence rates of depression among international students, it
also is important to understand factors that contribute to elevated rates or serve as buffers
to help students psychologically cope with challenges and stressors. Indeed, international
students face several unique challenges above and beyond typical adjustment to college-
related stress that can compromise their transition to life in the US. These challenges
include difficulties with English, acculturative stress, and discrimination (Andre de Araujo,
2011; Pedersen, 1991; Sumer et al., 2008; Yeh & Inose, 2003). Although language difficulties
are not typically associated with mental health problems, for some international students
poor English language fluency can lead to several problems. For example, some
international students may have greater difficulty understanding lectures, keeping up with
class readings and notes, and interacting with other students in English (Pedersen, 1991).
Students may find that their lack of proficiency in English prohibits comfortable social
interactions and, in turn, the development of relationships with host-country students
outside of class. English fluency has been linked both to cultural adjustment stress and to
international students’ academic adjustment (Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006). Studies have
also shown a link between students’ English abilities and overall adaptation and academic
success at a host university (Crano & Crano, 1993; Ying & Liese, 1994).
English fluency is one aspect of the broader acculturation process that international
students experience during their transition to a new culture. Acculturation is defined
as the behavioral and psychological changes that an individual encounters as he or she
enters a new culture and has contact with people from different cultural groups (Atri,
Sharma, & Cottrell, 2007). Acculturative stress refers to the specific adjustment stress
associated with the transition from one’s home culture to a new cultural environment
(Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994). Prior research has shown that there are regional differences
in acculturation difficulty. The adjustment process is generally more stressful when the
cultural differences between the home and host cultures are greater (Pedersen, 1991;
Sam, 2001). Yeh and Inose (2003) found that students from Asia, Latin America, and
Africa experienced higher levels of acculturative stress than did students from European
countries studying at the same U.S. university. In a similar study by Poyrazli et al.
132 Shadowen et al.
(2010), African international students experienced the highest levels of acculturative

stress, followed by Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latino students, with European students
showing the lowest levels of acculturative stress.
These regional differences in acculturative stress may be due to the fact that students
from cultures more dissimilar to the U.S. experience a more intense culture clash during
their transition to the host culture, or because they are less likely to “blend in” with the
U.S. student population than are White European international students (Poyrazli et al.,
2010). Given these findings, it seems likely that much of the stress that international
students experience during their transition to the host environment is not simply due to
homesickness or general adjustment issues but rather specifically to adjustment related to
cultural differences.
International students’ ethnic and racial differences as well as their lack of English
language fluency may cause some students to be targets of discrimination (Sam, 2001).
Discrimination typically is defined as negative events, such as biases and prejudice, that
are based on group membership (Feagin & Eckberg, 1980; Hanassab, 2006). Immigrants
and international students report experiencing higher levels of discrimination compared
with levels experienced by domestic, U.S. students (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). Previous
empirical work with immigrant populations has shown that perceived discrimination is
one of the major acculturation-related stressors associated with negative mental health
outcomes and poor psychological well-being (Jasinskaha-Lahti, Liebkind, Jaakkola, &
Reuter 2006). Interestingly, perceived discrimination tends to increase as students spend
more time in the US (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007).
Discrimination may exacerbate the isolation and stress that already accompany a
transition to a new environment. For example, increased discrimination has been
associated with higher rates of depression among Asian students, above and beyond
general everyday stress (Wei, Ku, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Liao, 2008). Additionally, studies
have shown that perceived discrimination lowers students’ satisfaction with attending a
U.S. university (Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung, 2008) and can negatively impact students’
educational experience (Karuppan & Barari, 2011).
On the other hand, strong social support networks can potentially facilitate the tran-
sition to studying in the US, particularly for students from collectivistic societies. Col-
lectivistic cultures tend to place an emphasis on relationships and social connectedness
(Cross, 1995), and a collectivist cultural orientation is associated with greater vulnerability
to social experiences (Sumer et al., 2008). Research indicates that strong social networks
may serve to buffer an individual’s vulnerability to stressful situations by preventing a sit-
uation from being perceived as stressful or by facilitating a positive behavioral response to
stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
Given their difficulties with language, acculturative stress, and perceived discrimina-
tion, the support of a social network may be quite important for international students,
who generally feel a lack of adequate social support and connectedness in the host coun-
try (Yeh & Inose, 2003). The loss of social support from relationships in their home country
can have a negative influence on their psychological well-being (Bhochhibhoya, Dong, &
Branscum, 2017; Chuah & Singh, 2016; Pedersen, 1991). Social support may play a crucial
role in protecting students from the isolation and stress associated with the adjustment to
university life in a new country.
Supporting International Students

The dramatic growth of international student enrollment at U.S. institutions in recent
years has arguably presented university administrators and service units with a number
of challenges for how to best support this community and ensure their successful
transition to campus (Kelo, Rogers, & Rumbley, 2010). The complexity of adjusting to a
new academic, social, and cultural setting, coupled with the uncertainties surrounding
immigration regulations and travel safety and security, can be very confusing and stressful
for international students (Msengi, 2004; Perrucci & Hu, 1995). It is therefore critical that
institutions remain proactive and intentional at offering strong support services that meet
the changing needs and enrich the experience of these students.
Typically, support services for international students at U.S. institutions are organized
through a dedicated support office, which is generally responsible for providing a number
or services including advising on visa and employment options, cultural programming and
campus-wide engagement opportunities, and a variety of resources that help students
navigate occasional academic and social issues (Briggs & Ammigan, 2017; Wood & Kia,
2000). It is common for these support offices to collaborate extensively with other student
affairs units, such as the counseling center, student wellness, and health services, to
reach a broader audience and increase access to a wider range of services on campus.
Campus counseling centers and other support offices typically have limited resources, and
therefore it is crucial to understand the experiences of international students regarding
adjustment and mental health symptoms, and how best these students can be supported.
Method
The Present Study
The purpose of this study was to further our understanding of negative mental health
outcomes in international students by examining the prevalence and correlates of
depressive symptoms on a U.S. campus, in order to inform relevant college student
services. The first aim of this study was to document the prevalence of depressive
symptoms among international students. We were interested in identifying the percentage
of international students who met established clinical cut-offs for internalizing problems
on widely used screening measures of depressive and anxiety symptoms. The second
aim of this study was to examine the associations between depressive symptoms and
lack of English fluency, and the presence of acculturative stress, perceived discrimination,
and social support. Due to the importance of communication skills when adjusting to a
host culture, we hypothesized that international students with poor self-reported English
fluency would exhibit higher depressive symptoms than those who felt more confident and
comfortable interacting in the host culture language. We also hypothesized that higher
levels of acculturative stress and perceived discrimination would be associated with more
depressive symptoms, due to the association of stress with depression in past research.
Finally, we hypothesized that individuals who reported having a large social support group
134 Shadowen et al.
to turn to would report fewer depressive symptoms than individuals without a strong base
of social support.
Participants
Participants were drawn from a potential pool of 1,991 international students enrolled
at a mid-size 4-year university in the Mid-Atlantic region (hereafter referred to as “the
university site”). A total of 490 international students (254 males, 236 females) consented
to participate in the study and completed the survey. On average, students were 24.9
years old (SD = 4.28), with 46.0% having spent 2 years or less living outside of their home
country. Approximately 70.2% of the students were enrolled in a graduate program, and
29.8% were undergraduate students. Participants originated from nine different regions
of the world, including Africa (2.0%), Central America and the Caribbean (2.4%), Central
Asia (0.8%), East and Southeast Asia (69.8%), Europe (4.5%), North America (including
Mexico; 0.6%), the Middle East (4.1%), South America (4.7%), and South Asia (11.0%).
World region identifications were based on the official designations of the U.S. government
in the CIA World Fact Book (Central Intelligence Agency, 2017). Together, students from
Asia constituted 81.6% of the sample. Across the full sample, 92.9% reported that English
was not their first language.
Procedure
The International Student Services office at the university site emailed the currently
enrolled international undergraduate and graduate students an introductory letter that
explained the present study and provided a link to a Qualtrics website where students
could anonymously complete the study survey. Students gave consent to participate in
the study in compliance with the overseeing university’s Institutional Review Board. To
encourage participation, students who completed the survey within a 3-week period were
given the opportunity to enter a raffle drawing for a $100 gift card to a local home goods
store. To ensure participant anonymity, participants were directed to another, de-linked
site if they wished to enter their email addresses for the raffle. Three reminder emails were
sent to the students over the course of the 3 weeks that the survey was available. Of the
1,991 students who were invited to participate, 490 participants completed the minimum
number of scales to be included in the sample. The response rate was approximately
24.6%, which is comparable to other online survey research with students (Duru &
Poyrazli, 2011; Rice et al., 2012; Sumer et al., 2008).
Measures
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and a series of measures designed
to assess their depressive and anxiety symptoms, English fluency, acculturative stress,
perceived discrimination, and levels of social support. We used existing scales or adapted
existing scales when necessary.
Demographics
Participants were asked to indicate their region of origin, gender, age, and educational
level.
Depressive Symptoms
We used the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D) to
screen for depressive symptoms. Items were rated on a 4-point scale, and total CES-D
scores could range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms.
A score of 16 and above is the typical cut-off score for screening positively for clinically
significant depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977). Items on the CES-D assess feelings of
worthlessness, helplessness, hopelessness, appetite loss, and sleep disturbances (Radloff,
1977). A sample item from this scale is “I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor”
(Æ = .90). The CES-D is a widely used depression screening inventory for non-clinical
populations and has been used in prior studies with international students in the US
(Constantine, Okazaki, & Utsey, 2004; Rice et al., 2012) as well as with diverse Latino
(Torres, 2010) and Asian communities (Wei, Heppner, Ku, & Liao, 2010). It has also been
used for research purposes in various Asian countries (Mackinnon, McCallum, Andrews,
& Anderson, 1998).
Anxiety Symptoms
The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is a 21-item scale that was used to measure the severity of
anxiety symptoms (Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988). Items are rated on a 4-point scale,
and possible scores can range from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety
symptomatology. Participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced anxiety
symptoms such as a “fear of the worst happening” in the past month (Æ = .97).
English Fluency
English fluency was examined using two items developed for the present study that were
rated on a 5-point scale. The two items were (1) “How would you rate your current ability to
speak and interact in English?” and (2) “How would you rate your confidence in speaking
English in front of native English speakers?” Scores on this scale could range from 2 to 10,
with higher scores indicating greater English fluency (Æ = .91).
Acculturative Stress
The Acculturative Stress Scale for International Students (ASSIS) is a 36-item 5-point scale
designed to assess the stress associated with acculturation among international students
(Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994). For this study, we adapted the wording of some items for
international students who may not understand idiomatic phrases in English and removed
two items that were irrelevant for this specific population. For example, the question “I feel
angry that my people are considered inferior here” was revised to read “I feel angry that
people from my country are considered inferior here” (italics added). The ASSIS consists of
seven subscales: Perceived Discrimination (eight items), Homesickness (four items items),
136 Shadowen et al.
Perceived Hate (five items), Guilt (two items), Fear (four original, three in our adapted
version), Stress Due to Change/Culture Shock (three items), and Miscellaneous Concerns
(10 items, nine in our adapted version). For this study we used the total scale score, which
could range from 34 to 170, with higher scores indicating greater acculturative stress (Æ =
.96).
Perceived Discrimination
Perceived discrimination was assessed using a 9-item scale that focused on common
experiences of chronic and routine discrimination (Williams, Yu, & Jackson, 1997).
Participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced certain discrimination
events such as, “people act as if they are better than you” (Æ = .95). Items were rated on a 4-
point scale and possible total scores could range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating
higher levels of perceived discrimination.
Social Support
Originally, we intended to use a 4-item scale to measure social support, which included
questions about a students’ number of friends from the same region, American friends,
how many people they could turn to for support if needed, and how satisfied they were
with their current level of social support. However, the coefficient alpha for this combined
scale was very poor (Æ = .58) so we decided to just use one item from the scale as our
measure of social support. Social support was measured with the one item on a 5-point
scale. The item asked participants “How many people here in [city] do you feel you could
turn to for support or help if needed?” Scores could range from 1 to 5, with higher scores
indicating greater levels of local social support. This question was designed to rate the
students’ own perceptions of the availability of social support in their host community.
Data Analysis
All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 23). First, we
examined the prevalence of internalizing problems by gender, education status (graduate
versus undergraduate), and region (Asian versus non-Asian) using the prescribed cut-off
score of 16 for clinically significant depressive symptoms on the CES-D scale (Radloff,
1977). Although anxiety was only included as a covariate in the present study, we also
examined the prevalence of clinically significant anxiety using the BAI cut-off score of 19
to indicate moderate to severe anxiety (Beck et al., 1988). We then performed chi-square
analyses to determine if there were significant differences between students exceeding
cutoffs on internalizing problems by gender, education status, and region.
To test hypotheses related to correlates of depressive symptoms, we conducted a
hierarchical multiple regression analysis using depressive symptoms as the outcome
variable. All continuous predictors were centered to facilitate interpretation of the
intercept. Dummy codes were created for gender (female = 1), education status (graduate
students = 1), and region (Asian region = 1). In these analyses, the demographic
variables of gender, education status, and region were entered in Step 1 as control
variables. Additionally, because anxiety is a construct that is generally highly correlated
with depression and was correlated with depression at r = .70 (p < .001) in the present
sample, we also controlled for anxiety levels in Step 1 of the regression. English fluency was
entered as a predictor variable in Step 2 of the analysis, as this variable was hypothesized
to be uniquely associated with depressive symptoms in the current sample. In Step 3 of
the analysis, we simultaneously entered acculturative stress and perceived discrimination;
these variables were entered together given their high degree of conceptual overlap. We
then tested the relationship between social support and the depressive symptoms in Step
4 of the regression analysis, to test whether social support buffered depressive symptoms
above and beyond the risk factors entered into the regression at Steps 2 and 3.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
An examination of study variable characteristics showed that the depressive symptoms
outcome variable was slightly positively skewed. After performing a log transformation of
this outcome, we used both the non-transformed and transformed variable and found no
difference in results. Accordingly, all results reported below utilize the non-transformed
outcome to facilitate interpretation.
Prevalence of Internalizing Problems

Table 1 summarizes the prevalence and mean levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms
above clinical cut-offs according to various demographic characteristics. The number of
total international students meeting or exceeding the cut-off score for clinically significant
depressive symptoms was 222, or 45.3% of the sample. The number of students meeting
or exceeding the screening cut-off for anxiety symptoms was 121, or 24.7% of the sample.
Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences in the percentage of students meeting
clinical cut-offs depending on various demographic characteristics. In the undergraduate
student group, 62.3% of students met the cut-off criteria for depressive symptoms, which
was greater than the 38.1% of graduate students who met or exceeded the cut-off, ¬2 (1,
N = 490) = 24.32, p < .001. There were also significant differences between the 43.2%
of undergraduate students and 16.9% of graduate students who met the clinical cut-
off for moderate or severe anxiety symptoms ¬2 (1, N = 490) = 38.10, p < .001. With
regard to regional differences, 27.2% of Asian international students reported anxiety
symptomatology that met the cut-off point for moderate to severe anxiety symptoms,
while only 13.3% of non-Asian students met this clinical cut-off ¬2 (1, N = 490) = 7.65, p
< .01. There were no significant differences by gender for depressive or anxiety symptoms.
Note. Chi-square analyses for significant differences by group. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p <
.001
Bivariate Correlations
Table 2 reports zero-order bivariate correlations among study variables, along with means
and standard deviations. Depression and anxiety were strongly positively correlated (r
= .70, p < .001), as would be expected given the literature on internalizing concerns
138 Shadowen et al.
Table 1. Prevalence of clinically significant depressive and anxiety symptoms by demographic

variables (N = 490)
Depressive Anxiety
symptoms symptoms
Demographic M (SD) (%) above M (SD) (%) above
variables cutoff cutoff
Male 16.42 (09.91) 118 (46.5%) 11.30 (12.58) 66 (26.0%)
Female 16.47 (10.17) 104 (44.1%) 11.96 (13.02) 55 (23.3%)
Asian 16.85 (10.04) 185 (46.2%) 12.32 (13.24) 109 (27.2%)**

Non-Asian 14.63 (9.83) 37 (41.1%) 8.51 (10.02) 12 (13.3%)**
Undergrad 18.20 (10.57) 91 (62.3%)*** 16.29(15.23) 63 (43.2%)***

Graduate 14.96 (9.42) 131 9.63 (11.03) 58 (16.9%)***
(38.1%)***
Entire sample 16.44 (10.03) 222 (45.3%) 11.62 (12.79) 121 (24.7%)
(Creamer, Foran, & Bell, 1995; Jansson-Frojmark & Lindblom, 2008). Acculturative stress
and perceived discrimination were also strongly positively correlated (r = .66, p < .001).
English fluency showed a small negative correlation with anxiety (r = °.17, p < .001) and
depression (r = °.11, p < .05). Social support was inversely related to study variables,
including anxiety (r = °.23, p < .001), and positively to English fluency (r = .19, p < .001).
Table 2. Zero-order bivariate correlations among study variables (N = 490)
Variables 1 2 3
1. Depressive symptoms —
2. Anxiety symptoms .70*** —
3. English fluency °.17*** °.11* —
4. Acculturative stress .56*** .52*** -.25*** —
5. Perceived discrimination .63*** .71*** °.15** .66*** —
6. Social support °.23*** °.06 .19*** °.13** °.08 —
M 16.44 11.62 7.65 67.75 5.43 3.37
SD 10.00 12.78 1.69 20.20 5.78 1.09
Range 0–48 0–63 2–10 33–132 0–27 1–5
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Correlates of Depressive Symptoms

Table 3 summarizes the hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, the demographic
and anxiety variables accounted for significant variation in depressive symptom scores,
Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression model (N = 490)
Variable B (SE) Ø t Semi-partial

correlation
Step 1
Female °0.40 (0.65) °.02 °0.62 °.02
Graduate °1.39 (0.73) °.06 °1.92 °.06
student
Asian region 0.16 (0.84) .01 0.19 .01
Anxiety 0.54 (0.03) .70 20.67*** .66
Step 2
Female °0.42 (.064) °.02 °0.65 °.02
Graduate °1.22 (0.72) °.06 °1.69 °.05
student
Asian region °0.60 (0.87) °.02 °0.69 °.02
Anxiety 0.54 (0.03) .68 20.65*** .66
English flu- °0.57 (0.20) °.10 °2.86** °.09
ency
Step 3
Female °0.41 (0.61) °.02 °0.67 °.02
Graduate °0.96 (0.69) °.04 °1.39 °.04
student
Asian region °1.72 (0.84) °.07 °2.05* °.06
Anxiety 0.39 (0.03) .49 11.37*** .34
English °0.34 (0.19) °.06 °1.75 °.05
fluency
Acculturative 0.11 (0.02) .23 5.45*** .16
stress
Discrimination 0.21 (0.09) .12 2.43* .07
Step 4
Female °0.70 (0.60) °.04 °1.17 °.03
Graduate °1.21 (0.67) °.06 °1.80 °.05
student
Asian region °1.07 (0.83) °.04 °1.30 °.04
Anxiety 0.39 (0.03) .49 11.67*** .34
English flu- °0.14(0.19) °.02 °0.70 °.02
ency
Acculturative 0.10 (0.20) .20 5.20*** .15
stress
Discrimination 0.20 (0.08) .12 2.38* .07
Social Sup- °1.44 (0.28) °.16 °5.12*** °.15
port
Note. Step 1 R2 = .50, Step 2 R2 = .51, Step 3 R2 = .56, Step 4 R2 = .59 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
140 Shadowen et al.
F(4, 485) = 120.92, p < .001, R2 = .50. There was also a significant, positive relationship
between anxiety scores and depression scores (B = 0.54, p < .01). In Step 2, English fluency
was significantly associated with depressive symptoms, such that lower levels of English
fluency were associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms (B = °0.57, p < .01),
(¢R2 = .01), ¢F(1, 484) = 8.20, p < .01, R2 = .51. An examination of the change in R2 showed
that adding English fluency to the model did not greatly increase the variance explained in
depressive symptoms. At Step 3, we found that higher levels of both acculturative stress (B
= 0.11 p < .001) and perceived discrimination (B = 0.21, p < .05) were significantly related
to higher levels of depressive symptoms (¢R2 = .06), ¢F(2, 482) = 30.38, p < .001, R2 =
.56. However, with the acculturative stress and perceived discrimination variables added
to the model there was no longer an observable effect for English fluency on depression
outcomes (B = °0.34, ns). In Step 4 we entered social support into the model (B =
°1.44, p < .001). The effect for acculturative stress and perceived discrimination remained
statistically significant in this step. After controlling for the aforementioned demographic
variables, anxiety symptoms, acculturative stress, and perceived discrimination, we found
a significant effect for social support, such that higher levels of social support were
associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms (¢R2 = .02), ¢F(1, 481) = 26.19, p <
.001, R2 = .59. Overall, the full model accounted for 59% of the variance in international
students’ depressive symptoms.
Discussion
In this study we investigated the extent to which international students’ lack of
English fluency and their experiences of acculturative stress, discrimination, and
social support were associated with depressive symptoms. In addition, we explored
whether demographic variables were associated with these depressive symptoms. We
found that overall international students reported high levels of depressive and anxiety
symptomology, with 45.3% of students meeting the clinically significant screening cut-
off for depression on the CES-D measure, and 24.7% of students screening positive for
moderate-to-severe anxiety symptoms on the BAI. We found that undergraduate students
tended to report higher on both the depression and anxiety measures, as 62.3% endorsed
significant levels of depressive symptoms and 43.2% endorsed moderate-to-severe levels
of anxiety symptoms. This is consistent with the pattern of slightly higher depressive and
anxiety symptoms reported among U.S. undergraduate students compared to graduate
students (Eisenberg et al., 2007) but has not to our knowledge been extensively and
specifically explored in international student populations. Additionally, significantly more
Asian international students reported anxiety symptoms above the clinical cut-off for
moderate-to-severe anxiety symptoms than did non-Asian international students. This
may be because Asian students find the changes related to adjustment to the US to be more
anxiety-provoking or because they have more difficulties overall with the adjustment.
These findings are consistent with prior research indicating that Asian international
students have more difficulty adjusting to the norms and values of the host culture than
do international students from other regions (Hsieh, 2006).
Our first hypothesis, which was that English fluency would be associated with
depressive symptoms outcomes, was partially supported. There was a significant
association between English fluency and depressive symptoms in analyses examining

English fluency and other demographic variables in relation to depressive symptoms.
Having fewer difficulties with English language fluency was associated with lower levels
of depressive symptoms, consistent with the notion that increased communication and
self-expression abilities may be associated with fewer mental health concerns. However,
when English fluency was considered in the context of acculturative stress and perceived
discrimination, the effect of English fluency on depressive symptoms was no longer
significant. This may be because the ability to communicate effectively in the language
of the host culture is critical to the acculturation process, and when acculturative stress
and English fluency are examined simultaneously, the effect of English proficiency is no
longer relevant to the depressive symptoms outcome.
Results supported our hypothesis that the experience of high levels of acculturative
stress would be associated with higher scores on the depressive symptoms measure,
even when controlling for other demographic factors. This is consistent with past
literature that links acculturative stress and depression in groups of international students
(Constantine et al., 2004; Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008; Huang & Mussap, 2018). This
finding gives support to the idea that international students who experience higher
levels of culture-related stress may also experience more internalizing symptoms, which
has important implications for the treatment of these concerns. It is possible that the
treatment of internalizing symptoms among international students would also necessitate
a focus on the stress of acculturating to a new environment and host society. We also
observed that higher levels of perceived discrimination were associated with greater
depressive symptoms, in line with our hypothesis. This finding converges with literature
suggesting that perceived discrimination negatively impacts psychological well-being and
adjustment problems among immigrant populations in Europe (Jasinskaha-Lahti et al.,
2006) and among various groups of international students (Duru & Poyrazli, 2011; Poyrazli
& Lopez, 2007).
As this study examines acculturative stress and perceived discrimination simultane-
ously in relation to depressive symptoms, it is interesting that both were significantly asso-
ciated with increased symptomatology. Discrimination stress related to culture or ethnic
background has generally been thought of as a dimension of acculturative stress (Sandhu
& Asrabadi, 1994). The finding that perceived discrimination uniquely contributed to the
increase in depressive symptoms above and beyond the effects of acculturative stress sug-
gests that perceived discrimination may be especially salient for the international student
population, regardless of its impact on their acculturation process.
Study results also supported our hypothesis that higher levels of social support would
be associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. This finding is in line with the
previous findings of Sumer et al.’s (2008) study of international students and is consistent
with the broader literature on stress and coping, which suggests that social support can
contribute to the enhancement of well-being and positive mental health outcomes and is
linked to an increased ability to handle stressful events (Andre de Araujo, 2011). Students
with more social support are likely better able to navigate the stressful transition to life as
a student in the US and suffer fewer depressive symptoms as a result.
142 Shadowen et al.
Taken together, results from this study provide strong evidence for the importance of
social support networks for international students transitioning to life on a U.S. college
campus. The study also suggests the important roles that acculturative stress and
perceived discrimination may play with regard to negative mental health outcomes. These
findings additionally have implications for university services, which are discussed further
below.
Study Limitations
These findings must be interpreted in light of study limitations. This study is correlational
in nature and therefore does not allow us to draw inferences about causal relationships
between any of the variables. It is conceivable that high levels of anxiety or depressive
symptoms could lead to acculturative stress, the perception of discrimination, or a lack of
adequate social support networks.
Additionally, the measures were all gathered through self-report methods, and it is
possible that social desirability effects or a belief that results could be traced back to
respondents affected participant reporting. These types of measures can also suffer from
auto-correlation effects. Some students reported low levels of English proficiency and
yet completed the survey in English, which may have impacted their reporting on study
variables.
Although we employed measures that have been successfully used with international
students in the past, it is possible that the use of certain measures outside of their cultural
context had limited relevance for the students from different regions. Depressive or
anxiety symptoms may manifest differently across various cultures, or measures could
have been interpreted within a participant’s own cultural viewpoint, leading to culturally
biased results. Despite the fact that we obtained a large sample, the regional sub-sample
groupings were extremely uneven, and for this reason we did not compare students from
the various regions on study variables, as in some cases we would be comparing only a
handful of students from one country to several hundred from another. Although we split
the sample into Asian and non-Asian groupings on several study variables, these regions
are very heterogeneous, and culture can vary widely from country to country, even within
the Asian region.
In the future, researchers could employ stratified random sampling in order to obtain
equal representation from all regions and to have a random sample. This would allow
for sub-analyses of group differences between various regions or even countries. Future
research could include a longitudinal study that surveys international students in their
home countries and then again at various time points during their time at the host
university. This type of study could provide rich data for an in-depth understanding
of the process of acculturation and its impact on psychosocial adjustment; this method
could additionally allow for an examination of causal mechanisms. Additionally, a global
comparative perspective of depressive symptoms among international students studying
in other leading host nations, such as Australia and the UK, could serve as an interesting
springboard for future research.
Implications and Conclusions

The growing number of international students enrolled on U.S. campuses presents
many challenges to university administrators and mental health services providers.
Understanding the experiences and needs of international students has important
consequences for decision-making around the structure and provision of on-campus
services. Despite this study’s limitations, there are several important implications for
international student services on campuses in the US. Previous research suggests that
international students drastically underuse available mental health services on campus
(Andrade, 2006; Liu, 2009; Mori, 2000; Pedersen, 1991). A study in one university
counseling center (Nilson, Berkel, Flores, & Lucas, 2004) found that international students
made up 8% of the student body but represented only 2.6 % of clients seen at the
counseling center that year, whereas minority students with comparable demographics
were seen at the counseling center at much higher rates.
Potential reasons for the underuse of mental health services by international students
include cultural beliefs about mental health, the perception that counselors will not
understand students’ culture or problems, and the perception that services are not
accessible (Mori, 2000; Yi et al., 2003). Results of the current study demonstrate that
international students indicate that they are suffering from high rates of depressive and
anxiety symptoms and could potentially benefit from the help of counseling centers.
Universities could increase outreach on campus to target international students and make
them aware of the available services. Culturally appropriate services, including service
provision in a student’s own native language when possible, might put international
students more at ease in a counseling situation (Constantine, Kindaichi, Okazaki, Gainor,
& Baden, 2005; Pedersen, 1991; Yi et al., 2003). Counseling services could be provided
through informal networks, keeping in mind that research has found that the cultural
norms of some societies cause international students to be wary of seeking out counseling
services (Liu, 2009).
The results of this study demonstrate that perceived discrimination is prevalent and
important even above and beyond general acculturative stress. This provides several
implications for college student intervention services. To lessen the discrimination on
campus, universities could actively engage both their American students and international
students around ideas of tolerance, appreciation of diversity, and intercultural learning
(Mori, 2001). Another way to potentially lessen perceived discrimination on campus and to
provide students with increased social support would be to initiate peer-to-peer programs
or partnerships, in which international students are paired with a motivated U.S. student
to have informal discussions, coffee breaks, or perform service activities together. These
types of outreach activities could promote cultural understanding and could also be a good
way for international students to feel more welcomed by the host students on campus and
to ultimately decrease the amount of isolation and discrimination against international
students on campus (Abe, Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Pedersen, 1991).
Findings from this study suggest that high levels of social support may help
international students avoid depressive symptoms. Counseling services for international
students could include social support groups for students to help them find social support
networks in the area and to connect with other students (Dipelou, Kang, & Cooper, 2007).
144 Shadowen et al.
Universities could encourage international students to join extracurricular activities or

clubs as a way for them to form social bonds on campus and interact with the campus
community. International student services could also link their international students
with more formal support networks on campus such as placement in host families
throughout the duration of their stay (Liu, 2009). University administrators, student
support units, and counseling centers should be aware that social support plays an
important role for international students in relation to depressive symptoms and take
steps appropriate to their unique university situation to ensure that international students
have an opportunity to form social bonds during their time on campus. Future research
is needed to better understand the moderating influence of social support on depressive
symptoms in international students, and the factors that influence the prevalence of
depressive symptoms within different national and regional international student groups.
References
Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on international
student adjustment. Journal of College Student Adjustment, 39(6), 539–547.
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English speaking universities: Adjustment
factors. Journal of Research in Higher Education, 5, 131–154.
Araujo, A. (2011). Adjustment issues of international students enrolled in American
colleges and universities: A review of the literature. Higher Education Studies, 1, 2–8.
Atri, A., Sharma, M., & Cottrell, R. (2007). Role of social support, hardiness, and
acculturation as predictors of mental health among. volume 27.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical
anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6),
893–897.
Bhochhibhoya, A., Dong, Y., & Brancscum, P. (2017). Sources of social support Among
international college students in the United States. Journal of International Students,
7(3), 671–686.
Botha, F. B., Shamblaw, A. L., & Dozois, D. J. (2017). Reducing the stigma of depression
among Asian students: A social norm approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
48(1), 113–131.
Briggs, P. & Ammigan, R. (2017). A collaborative programming and outreach model for
international student support offices. Journal of International Students, 7(4), 1080–1095.
Chang, M. X. L., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T., & Haslam, C. (2017). Cultural identity and the
expression of depression: A social identity perspective. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 27(1), 16–34.
Chuah, J. S. & Singh, M. K. M. (2016). International students’ perspectives on the
importance of obtaining social support from host national students. International
Education Studies, 9(4), 132–140.
Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
Constantine, M. G., Kindaichi, M., Okzakai, S., Gainor, K. A., & Baden, A. L. (2005). A
qualitative investigation of the cultural adjustment. volume 11.
Constantine, M. G., Okazaki, S., & Utsey, S. O. (2004). Self-concealment, social self-
efficacy, acculturative stress, and depression in African, Asian, and Latin American
college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 230–241.
Crano, S. L. & Crano, W. D. (1993). A measure of adjustment strain in international
students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24(3), 267–283.
Creamer, M., Foran, J., & Bell, R. (1995). The Beck Anxiety Inventory in a non-clinical
sample. Behavior Research and Therapy, 33(4), 477–485.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 673–698.
Cujipers, P., Cristea, I. A., Ebert, D. D., Koot, H. M., Auerbach, R. P., Bruffaerts, R., & Kessler,
R. C. (2015). Psychological treatment of depression in college students: A meta-analysis.
Depression and Anxiety, 33, 400–414.
Dipelou, A., Kang, J., & Cooper, C. (2007). Support group for international students. Journal
of College Student Psychotherapy, 22(1), 63–74.
Duru, E. & Poyrazli, S. (2011). Perceived discrimination, social connectedness, and
other predictors of adjustment difficulties among Turkish international students.
International Journal of Psychology, 46(6), 446–454.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. (2009). Mental health and academic success in
college. The B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9, 40–41.
Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. L. (2007). Prevalence and correlates
of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among college students. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 77, 534–542.
Eisenberg, D., Hunt, J., & Speer, N. (2013). Mental health in American colleges and
universities: Variation across student subgroups and across campuses. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, pages 60–67.
Feagin, J. R. & Eckberg, D. L. (1980). Discrimination: Motivation, action, effects, and
context. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 1–20.
Forbes-Mewett, H. (2016). Exploring the social and academic experiences of international
students in higher education institutions. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Fritz, M. V., Chin, D., & DeMarinis, V. (2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation, and
adjustment among international and North American students. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 32, 244–259.
Education, 10(2), 157–172.
Hill, R. M., Yaroslavsky, I., & Pettit, J. W. (2015). Enhancing depression screening to
identify college students at risk for persistent depressive symptoms. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 174, 1–6.
Hsieh, M. (2006). Identity negotiation among female Chinese international students in
second-language higher education. College Student Journal, 40, 870–884.
Huang, S. & Mussap, A. (2018). Maladaptive Perfectionism, Acculturative Stress and
Depression in Asian International University Students. Journal of Psychologists and
Counsellors in Schools, 28(2), 185–196.
146 Shadowen et al.
Jansson-Frojmark, M. & Lindblom, K. (2008). A bidirectional relationship between anxiety

and depression, and insomnia? A prospective study in the general population. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research, 64(4), 443–449.
Jasinskaha-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Jaakkola, M., & Reuter, A. (2006). Perceived
discrimination, social support networks, and psychological well-being among three
immigrant groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 293–311.
Karuppan, C. M. & Barari, M. (2011). Perceived discrimination and international
students’ learning: an empirical investigation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 33, 67–83.
Kawamoto, A., Youn, S. J., Bartholomew, T. T., Castonguay, L. G., & Locke, B. D. (2018). Inter-
and intra-group differences in psychological concerns among international students.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 31(2), 186–204.
Kelo, M., Rogers, T., & Rumbley, L. (2010). International student support in European
higher education needs, solutions and challenges.
Lipson, S. K., Gaddis, S. M., Heinze, J., Beck, K., & Eisenberg, D. (2015). Variations in student
mental health and treatment utilization across US colleges and universities. Journal of
American College Health, 63(6), 388–396.
Liu, M. (2009). Addressing the mental health problems of Chinese international college
students in the United States. Advances in Social Work, 10(1), 69–86.
Luo, J. & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2013). Examining the educational benefits of interacting with
international students. Journal of International Students, 3(2), 85–101.
Mackenzie, S., Wiegel, J. R., Mundt, M., Brown, D., Saewyc, E., & Heiligenstein, E.
(2011). Depression and suicide ideation among students accessing campus healthcare.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 101–107.
Mackinnon, A., McCallum, J., Andrews, G., & Anderson, I. (1998). The Center for
Epidemioloigcal Studies Depression Scale in older community samples in. The Journals
of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53(6), 343–352.
Martens, M. P., Martin, J., Hatchett, S., Fowler, R. F., Fleming, K., Karakashian, M., & Cimini,
M. D. (2008). Protective behavioral strategies and the relationship between depressive
symptoms and alcohol-related negative consequences among college students. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 55, 535–541.
Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 137–144.
Msengi, I. G. (2004). Sources of Stress and its impact on health behaviors and academic
performance of international students at a comprehensive midwestern university.
International Journal of Global Health and Health Disparities, 5, 55–69.
Nilson, J. E., Berkel, L. A., Flores, L. Y., & Lucas, M. S. (2004). Utilization rate and presenting
concerns of international students at a university counseling center. Journal of College
Psychotherapy, 19(2), 49–59.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist,
19(1), 10–58.
Perrucci, R. & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among
international graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491–508.
Poyrazli, S. & Kavanaugh, P. R. (2006). Marital status, ethnicity, academic achievement,
and adjustment strains: The case of graduate international students. College Student
Journal, 40(4), 767–780.
homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. Journal
of Psychology, 141(3), 263–280.
Poyrazli, S., Thukral, R. K., & Duru, E. (2010). International students’ race-ethnicity,
personality, and acculturative stress. Journal of Psychology and Counseling, 2(8), 25–32.
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological, 1(3), 385–401.
Rice, G., Choi, C. C., Zhang, Y., Morero, Y. I., & Anderson, D. (2012). Self-critical
perfectionism, acculturative stress, and depression among international students. The
Counseling Psychologist, 40(4), 575–600.
Sam, D. L. (2001). Satisfaction with life among international students: an exploratory
study. Social Indicators Research, 53(3), 315–337.
Sandhu, D. S. & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for
international students: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 75(2), 435–448.
Steptoe, A., Tsuda, A., Tanaka, Y., & Wardle, J. (2007). Depressive symptoms, socio-
economic background, sense of control, and cultural factors in university students from
23 countries. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14(2), 97–107.
Sumer, S., Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. (2008). Predictors of depression and anxiety among
international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 429–437.
Torres, L. (2010). Predicting levels of Latino depression: Acculturation, acculturative stress,
and coping. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 256–263.
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination.
Communication Education, 57, 64–87.
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Ku, T. Y., & Liao, K. Y. H. (2010). Racial discrimination stress,
coping, and depressive symptoms among Asian Americans: A moderation analysis.
Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 136–150.
Wei, M., Ku, T., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Liao, K. Y. (2008). Moderating effects
of three coping strategies and self-esteem on perceived discrimination and depressive
symptoms: A minority stress model for international students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 55, 451–462.
Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., & Jackson, J. S. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental
health: Socio-economic status, stress, and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology,
2(3), 335–351.
Wood, M. & Kia, P. (2000). International student affairs. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2000(111), 55–64.
Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 15–28.
148 Shadowen et al.
Yi, J. K., Lin, J. G., & Kishomoto, Y. (2003). Utilization of counseling services by international
students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(4), 333–342.
Ying, Y. & Liese, L. H. (1994). Initial adjustment of Taiwanese students to the United States:
The impact of postarrival variables. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(4), 466–477.
Author biography
Noel L. Shadowen is a post-doctoral researcher at the Center for Training, Evaluation, &
Community Collaboration at the University of Delaware, USA.
Ariel A. Williamson is a psychologist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, USA.
Nancy G. Guerra is Dean, School of Social Ecology and Professor, Department of

Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine, USA.
Ravichandran Ammigan is Executive Director of the Office for International Students and
Scholars at the University of Delaware, USA.
Matthew L Drexler is Assistant Director for Student Engagement at the Office for
International Students and Scholars, University of Delaware, USA.
!
!""#$%"&'"(")*+#,'-."*
!""#$%"&'"(")*+#,'-."
!
"##$%!&'(&)*'+,!-./012!"##$%!&'(()*34+!506/07!
"##$%!&'(&)*'+,!-./012!"##$%!&'(()*34+!506/07!!
896:;7!<=!">>:7!'!?&+'<@=!AAB!'4+)'3'
896:;7!<=!">>:7!' ?&+'<@=!AAB!'4+)'3'
C /01#23.*04*52,"#23,'023.*6,1)"2,7
99D7EB9.F2D/>
9D7EB9.F2D/>
!
"#$%&'(!)'*#+',*&-',$!.,/*#+0/!1*23#'*/!4,5&(,*#!
6&//#+*,*&-'!12%#+5&/&-'7!8#/#,+9:;)'<-+=#3!
6&/92//&-'!,'3!>?,+#'#//;8,&/&'(!>9*&5&*&#/!
!
$/F76!GH.I99E!
82'&"#7',9*04*6:"44'".);*8<***!
!
J9DH0H!-71./K!
**='#>?"->*@0.."A";*82'&"#7',9*04*B02)02;*8<!
>@1A8>BA
C#3('2A* 02* 3* .02A',1)'23.* -37"* 7,1)9* 04* 71D"#&'7""7E* 32)* 71D"#&'70#7E
"FD"#'"2-"7* 04* G37,"#E7* )'77"#,3,'02* 71D"#&'7'02* '2* 3* 8H<H* 12'&"#7',9;* ("*
')"2,'49*D#0G'2"2,*,:"G"7*32)*17"*"F-"#D,7*4#0G*01#*)3,3*,0*)"7'A2*D")3A0A'-*
3-,'&','"7*,0*17"*'2*(0#>7:0D7*(',:*7,344*32)*7,1)"2,7*40-17")*02*71D"#&'70#9*
D#3-,'-"H* I:"* 3-,'&','"7* 37>* (0#>7:0D* 3,,"2)""7* ,0* -027')"#* "FD"#'"2,'3.*
71D"#&'70#9* 23##3,'&"7* '2&0.&'2A* 7,1)"2,7E* 70-'3.* 2",(0#>7;* D#0?."G7*
'2,"#D#",'2A* 71D"#&'70#7E* 4"")?3->;* D#0?."G7* (',:* )'44"#'2A* 71D"#&'70#J
71D"#&'7""* #0."* "FD"-,3,'027;* 32)* D#0?."G7* (',:* 71D"#&'70#J71D"#&'7""*
G'7-0GG12'-3,'02H* K3-:* 7-"23#'0* '7* 40..0(")* ?9* 01#* .',"#3,1#"$'240#G")*
-0GG"2,3#9H*L"*3#A1"*,:3,*,:"7"*"GD'#'-3..9*'240#G");*A#012)")*3(3#"2"77$
#3'7'2A*3-,'&','"7*('..*3."#,*71D"#&'70#7*32)*71D"#&'7""7*,0*-0GG02*D#0?."G7*
"FD"#'"2-")*)1#'2A*71D"#&'70#9*M01#2"97;*32)*('..*"2-01#3A"*,:"G*,0*-027')"#*
,:"'#*0(2*71D"#&'70#9*"FD"-,3,'027*32)*D#3-,'-"7*G0#"*)""D.9H*
!
C#D?-+3/7!E/>>7.1H1/90!I./1/0F=!L/FL7.!7E:MH1/90=!>:A7.N/>/90=!>:A7.N/>9.!
E7N769A;701=!>:AA9.1=!1L7>/>!I./1/0F=!1:19./0F!
!
! !
!
150!
!
INTRODUCTION
This pedagogically focused article draws upon the results of a year-long study
in which we examined how international students and their supervisors
experienced master’s dissertation supervision (Harwood & Petrić, 2017),
defining international students as students “who have crossed borders for the
purpose of study” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
2013). The students were from various humanities and social sciences
disciplines and were studying in a research-intensive U.K. university. We took
a longitudinal case study approach (e.g., Duff, 2008), in which five supervisory
journeys were charted from beginning to end, drawing upon a range of methods
and data sources, including student and supervisor interviews, diaries,
supervisee draft chapters, supervisors’ feedback on these chapters, and analysis
of examiners’ final assessments of the dissertations. We also consulted
departmental supervisory guidelines, regulations, and assessment criteria.
During the supervision, we looked at what happened and why; and how each
party, supervisor and supervisee, felt about and evaluated the supervision.
During the initial stages of their journey, some students were struggling to draft
an initial dissertation proposal and sought the help of various parties to drive
their projects forward; while early on in the supervision, supervisors were
explaining supervisory arrangements, such as the expectations they had of their
supervisees and the extent to which they would comment on draft chapters. As
the journeys progressed, we continued to chart their peaks and troughs, as well
as analyzing supervisees’ writing and supervisors’ feedback, both oral and
written, on their supervisees’ work. Towards the end of the dissertation
experience, we asked both parties to reflect upon various pedagogic models of
supervision from the literature, seeking to determine the extent to which the
pedagogy enacted by the supervisor and experienced by the supervisee aligned
with one or more of the models. We also solicited informants’ preferred
pedagogies and their recommendations for how to enhance the supervision
experience for both parties.
Summarizing our results, we noted that our findings were “uplifting,
depressing—even shocking” (Harwood & Petrić, 2017, p. 1). This was because
of the varied experiences and practices of the supervisees and supervisors we
spoke to and heard about. Some supervisees described transformative
experiences, such as the dissertation being a period during which their
disciplinary and academic literacy knowledge dramatically increased. They
spoke of their thankfulness for supervisors who went above and beyond their
call of duty in helping effect these transformations. For other students, though,
the dissertation experience was less happy: some spoke of what can only be
seen as negligent supervisory practices, during which their requests for
meetings were ignored and their pleas for feedback unanswered.
151
We conducted this research for a number of reasons, one being that
master’s supervision is far less researched than doctoral supervision; another
being because we wished to better understand and describe the various roles
enacted by supervisor and supervisee at different stages of the supervisory
journey. However, one of the strongest drivers behind the project was
pedagogic. We were aware that the literature suggests that both supervisees and
supervisors can be unsure as to the roles required of them and how far they are
permitted to ask for or provide help, as Grant (2010a), Todd, Smith, and
Bannister (2006), and Turner (2015) make clear. We also knew from our own
experiences of supervising students over the years that colleagues within and
across departments have different ideas about their responsibilities and the
amount of time they should spend supervising. Then there is the fact that the
literature suggests that unhappy supervisory experiences are not uncommon (cf.
Acker, Hill, & Black, 1994; Aspland, 1999; Delamont, Atkinson, & Parry,
2000; Grant & Graham, 1994; Green, 2005; Guerin, Kerr, & Green, 2015;
Krase, 2007; Manathunga, 2014; McAlpine, Paulson, Gonsalves, & Jazvac-
Martek, 2012, to cite merely a selection of sources describing such
experiences). These unhappy dissertation journeys are sometimes caused by
supervisor–supervisee miscommunication (e.g., Blakeslee, 1997; Krase, 2007;
Schneider & Fujishima, 1995; Vehviläinen, 2009), and we felt learning more
about such experiences would help us better understand this phenomenon and
its causes.
Many of these accounts involve international students whose first
language is a language other than English, and as educators with interests in the
teaching of English to speakers of other languages, our research focused
exclusively on this international student population. We go on to identify our
international students experiencing difficulties related to social networks,
problems interpreting supervisors’ feedback, and with role expectations of
themselves and of their supervisors with which the latter may not agree—
themes to which we anticipate our readers who also work with international
students will easily relate. This is not to say that we feel our findings are only
relevant to students who are international students; indeed, we are of the view
that many of the troubling attitudes, beliefs, and practices we uncovered could
equally apply to the supervision of home students. Nonetheless, our work
expands upon and enhances the work done on international student supervision
and adopts a highly practical bent. Furthermore, given that international student
numbers continue their inexorable rise (Manathunga, 2014; UNESCO, 2016),
such work is particularly timely. As a result of conducting research into
supervision, then, we would be in a more informed position to share our
findings with teaching and learning units and committees responsible for
scheduling supervisor training or drawing up supervisory policies for staff and
students, and our research could help our colleagues formulate guidelines
152
designed to combat these dangers and difficulties. We envisaged being able to
offer something currently lacking in the literature: grounded supervisory
episodes and narratives that can serve as awareness-raising pedagogic activities
for staff and students with reference to supervision and supervisory practices.
Hence, this paper enables us to bridge a gap between research and practice:
between researching supervision and offering materials for supervisees and
supervisors that encourage reflection upon supervision. We also note that while
many universities offer students support courses dealing with writing and other
more generic management skills (e.g., help with time management), there is far
less commonly sustained preparation for supervision, which is an occluded
practice (Grant, 2008; Lee, 2008) and as such is unfamiliar to many students, a
large number of whom have never previously experienced it. Rather, it seems
there is an assumption that reading departmental guidelines about what
supervision entails (e.g., in terms of rights and responsibilities, the number of
supervisory meetings permitted, etc.) will be enough to enable students and
lecturers to competently perform the role of supervisee or supervisor. As we
shall see, however, our research painted a different picture, and we therefore
argue that our awareness-raising activities will enable students and staff to
reflect upon their roles more deeply.
Hence, below we outline some of the prominent issues that emerged
from the research and pedagogic activities we propose to enable students and
supervisors to engage with these issues, by reflecting upon their own
supervisory beliefs and practices. Indeed, we have used these activities in
workshops for supervisors working with both master’s and doctoral students,
learning and teaching colleagues, and English for Academic Purposes tutors in
U.K. universities, where they have generated a good deal of debate and
reflection.
PREVALENT THEMES
Helpful and Unhelpful Social Networks

During the course of their studies, supervisees consulted circles of family,
friends, acquaintances, and academics when they encountered difficulties, with
varying degrees of effectiveness. As Zappa-Hollman (2007) has shown (also
Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015), these networks can help smooth the path for
students’ disciplinary and institutional enculturation, and supervisees, support
tutors, and teaching and learning professionals would do well to consider who
may be best placed to advise when students experience various kinds of
difficulties.
Several of the supervisees in our research experienced problems related
to their research methodology, and in the episode we describe below, the
supervisee Jay (all names are pseudonyms) eventually turned to his social
153
network for help. Jay spoke of how, despite the fact his department provided
an obligatory research methods module that was supposed to equip students to
understand and account for the methodological choices they would make in
their dissertation, he struggled to understand the concepts of epistemology and
ontology. To make matters worse, he claimed the readings provided by the
module lecturer (who was also his supervisor, Billy) were too difficult for him
to grasp: Indeed, he said the more he read about epistemology and ontology,
the more confused he became. In our worksheet describing this scenario
(Scenario 1), we invite discussion of possible ways to resolve this problem, as
well as providing a possible solution for evaluation. (All scenarios taken from
Harwood & Petrić, 2017; permissions granted.)
Scenario 1: Problems related to research methodology

“The more I read, the more confused I become”
Jay: Supervisee
Billy: Supervisor
Jay’s department provided an obligatory research methods module that was

supposed to help him to understand and account for the methodological
choices in their dissertation. But he struggled to understand the concepts of
epistemology and ontology. This module was taught by Billy, who was also
Jay’s supervisor. Jay claimed the readings provided by Billy during the
module were too difficult for him to grasp: Indeed, he said the more he read
about epistemology and ontology, the more confused he became.
What should Jay do to solve this problem?

What are some of the potential dangers or difficulties with each of the
possible solutions that come to mind?
One possibility would be for Jay to seek advice on reading from friends on
master’s programmes at other universities. How do you feel about this
idea?
What, on balance, seems to be the best option? Why?
Obviously there are issues of trust and face here. If the research methods
module convenor had been someone else other than his supervisor, it would
likely have been less face-threatening for Jay to solicit advice from Billy about
more basic, introductory readings. However, Jay may have felt that, having
tried and failed to understand the readings Billy had suggested, he needed to
seek help elsewhere. The way Jay in fact resolved the problem was by asking
friends in master’s programmes in different departments and at different
154
universities for advice on “easier” readings that he found “more direct,” “more
to the point.”
Despite Jay’s network supplying alternative readings, it turned out that
when Billy read Jay’s draft methods chapter, there were still problems with his
use and understanding of the terms epistemology and ontology. While
supervisees’ social networks can of course play an important role in helping
students gain disciplinary knowledge and provide emotional support
(Kuwahara, 2008; Liu et al., 2008; Seloni, 2012; Taha & Cox, 2016), they may
not always be so beneficial. In Krase’s (2007) case study of a problematic
supervisory experience, the Korean master’s student in focus lacked a social
network at her U.S. university, and so consulted family and friends when she
experienced difficulties with her research. However, the advice she received
led her to take unwise methodological decisions, as her advice-givers were
unfamiliar with her programme and its demands. In Jay’s case, the extent to
which the suggested reference works were good choices is open to question;
but the fact remains that, despite reading these supposedly “easier,” “more
direct” sources, he was still unable to demonstrate an adequate level of
understanding in his writing. This scenario opens up the possibility, then, of the
discussion of the potential benefits and dangers of supervisees seeking to
resolve their problems using sources other than the supervisor. Other (possibly
more helpful) sources could have included different lecturers in the department,
or PhD students—or indeed Jay’s supervisor Billy, with Jay confessing that he
was experiencing difficulty with Billy’s suggested readings.
Another of our supervisees, Clara, successfully called upon a
disciplinary insider other than her supervisor, visiting a lecturer she had had no
contact with to solicit help with her literature search. (Clara had read one of this
lecturer’s recent articles and correctly believed she would possess the necessary
knowledge to help.) Laura, another of our supervisees, was required to shoot a
film as part of her non-traditional dissertation (see Paltridge, 2004; Starfield &
Ravelli, 2006 for more on non-traditional dissertations), and sought the help of
friends who possessed a greater degree of technical know-how to do so, with a
certain amount of success. But in another of our cases, Janet’s supervisor could
only be described as negligent, and unfortunately Janet’s network provided
similarly inadequate support. Her network can be divided into two parts: (a)
students from her own peer group, who were struggling as much as she was and
were unable to answer her questions about methodology with authority; and (b)
former workplace colleagues located in her home country, who again seemed
to us not to be able to provide helpful advice, probably because they were
unfamiliar with the academic requirements being made of Janet. Hence, like
the other scenarios we present below, we are not claiming there is a pat answer
workshop participants of these activities should be offering. Social networks no
doubt have their uses, but, as Zappa-Hollman (2007) showed, they can vary in
155
their helpfulness depending on their composition, and depending upon the
advice being sought. In this case, if supervisees are considering the scenario,
they can perhaps be alerted to alternative sources of advice they may not have
considered they could consult, and if the workshop participants are supervisors,
they may consider whether and to what extent supervisees should be provided
with introductory readings to allow students like Jay to begin to get to grips
with key concepts. More generally and more closely related to the social
network theme, supervisors may also go on to discuss common problems and
questions supervisees have and who should answer them.
Problems Interpreting Supervisors’ Feedback

Throughout her time as a master’s student, Laura struggled to “read” or decode
her lecturers’ feedback. She was accustomed to a much more direct, critical
style of commentary she received from lecturers in her home country, and had
difficulties understanding why, for her U.K. work, she received poor grades
when the marker had found things to praise. Scenario 2 below is designed to
get workshop participants to consider how supervisees like Laura can become
more skilled in getting to the nub of the messages their supervisor is intent on
conveying.
Scenario 2: Problems with the master’s dissertation proposal

“If I have all these good things, don’t they count for anything?”
Laura: Supervisee
Rosie: Supervisor/Marker of Laura’s dissertation proposal
Laura is doing a “non-traditional” dissertation, consisting of making a

film and an accompanying text about her film.
Laura had to develop a dissertation plan, including a bibliography of 20

works. For 10 of these references, Laura needed to write a commentary about
their relevance to her dissertation. Laura was proud of her paper, expecting
to receive a high mark (65). But to her great disappointment, she was
awarded a mark of 58.
Laura’s paper mostly focused on details of the film she was planning to make
(what would be filmed, from what angles, with what cameras) but offered
little in the way of explanation of her motivation for the project or reference
to theoretical concepts or other literature. The annotations presented a mix
of a summary and statement of importance to the project. Most were rather
general and vague, as in the following typical example:
156
I believe this book will help me with the
analysis of the movie with the same name. Here
[author] makes a thorough analysis of [name of
film] from most points of view. Several topics
raised in this book are of interest to me, such
as: [list of topics].
I have chosen this book because I believe it to

be most helpful with my understanding of [film
influencing Laura’s project] from so many
perspectives, and thus finding my own
explanations for it. Moreover, when put next to
[book title] another book I will use for this
project, that contains the director’s own
writings explaining how he came to do this film,
how he envisioned it and even why he gave it
this name, I think I have an almost complete
support for understanding the film and its
implications. By understanding [film influencing
Laura’s project] I will be able to comment on
it, to criticise it and to draw conclusions.
Rosie’s feedback on Laura’s dissertation plan started by an encouraging

positive comment on the overall idea but went on to highlight a number of
problems, the most important of which was that the plan “does not delve into
the material with sufficient detail and depth”:

The dissertation plan includes a strong outline describing what
promises to be a very interesting field project both in terms of
the themes it addresses and its stylistic format. The choice of
[name of film] as a key stylistic influence helps to consolidate
the social historical document side of your project. Your
annotated bibliography gives evidence of some critical reading
in relation to your chosen themes identifying some key sources.
But although it covers major points, it does not delve into the
material with sufficient detail and depth. The bibliography is
also not entirely properly presented. Please consult the MA
booklet for guidelines and ensure that you proofread your work
carefully as the typographical errors proliferate over the last few
pages.

Clearly disappointed, Laura’s first reaction in the interview, which took
place shortly after she received the mark, was defensive, focusing on
157
typographical errors, such as the misspelt names of authors in the
bibliography:
These are mistakes that the computer makes. I correct

them and then the computer goes back and does it
again.
She was also annoyed by what she perceived as a discrepancy between the
amount of criticism in the overall feedback and the mark:
This entire part, three quarters, is good, and then for

two lines, two three mistakes, you give me a 58. And
don't point out the good things if you're going to give
me such a small mark, because then the question is if
I have all these good things, don't they count for
anything? I mean, you only said this is bad. I'm going
to have ten points taken out because this one thing is
bad, and another ten points because this thing is bad,
and then you go 58. And where do the good parts
come in?
What are the lessons to be taken from this episode?

How could this episode be used by lecturers or support tutors to help
students?
An immediate issue here is to familiarize the supervisee with the feedback

genre (in the West, at least, if not in universities in Laura’s own country). She
needs to become familiar with the “good news–bad news” form of feedback
often found in lecturers’ comments that Hyland and Hyland (2001) call paired-
act patterns, something we believe lecturers or support tutors could help
students to understand. In their study of feedback by English language teachers
given to international students on their writing at a New Zealand university,
Hyland and Hyland (see also Hyland, 1998) found that markers would often
use indirect language (such as hedges or questions) or ensure negative
comments were combined with positive ones (“Good ideas, but…”) to try to
make their criticisms less harsh and to maintain good relations with the
recipient. However, students at times struggled to understand the essence of the
less direct messages. Similarly, in Scenario 2, Laura struggles to understand
what she has done wrong, since the most important part of the feedback (“But
158
although it covers major points, it does not delve into the material with
sufficient detail and depth”) is preceded by positive comments about less
important matters. Laura also assumes that the space Rosie devotes to each
point should reflect its importance (“This entire part, three quarters, is good,
and then for two lines, two three mistakes, you give me a 58”). Readers may
feel that Laura has a point—in which case, the scenario can be used by teaching
and learning staff to have lecturers reflect on their feedback practices—but it is
no doubt the case that many lecturers will not devote as much space to
explaining the key parts of their feedback as they could and maybe should, and
so supervisors need to learn to attempt not only to make their feedback as
explicit as they can, but also to check, perhaps in a follow-up supervisory
meeting, that supervisees have grasped the key messages being transmitted.
Problems with Differing Supervisor/Supervisee Role Expectations

If they have previous experience of supervision, supervisees (and supervisors)
bring to the supervision their supervisory history, the manner in which they
have been accustomed to receive or give supervision. Clara had written an
undergraduate dissertation in her home country, but had enjoyed a very
different type of supervisory relationship with her supervisor there. Clara
described how her undergraduate supervisor provided very clear deadlines and
stage-by-stage guidance she was expecting to also be given by her U.K.
master’s supervisor—but encountered a very different type of supervisory
pedagogy.
Scenario 3: Differing supervisory preferences: Laissez-faire vs.

directive
“Here it’s just like ‘It’s up to you’.”
Clara: Supervisee
Clara was used to a fairly directive, top-down supervision style from her
undergraduate dissertation. She explained how she had been given regular
deadlines for tasks, and appreciated this way of doing things. However, her
master’s supervisor was much more hands-off:
Clara: I like to have deadlines but he’s not really saying “Ok,
give me this.” It depends on me 100%.
Int: He leaves that to you.
Clara: Yes, totally. Yeah, so, I’m used to deadlines so-
Int: That’s what you’ve had in the past?
Clara: Yes. In [home country].
159
Int: Your professor told you when you had to do things?
Clara: Yes, exactly. But here it’s just like, ‘It’s up to you.’
And so while her supervisor would provide rough suggestions on how long
Clara would probably need to write a literature review, collect and analyze
the data, and to write up the dissertation, he didn’t give Clara a series of dates
by which she had to get them done or show him; and while he would suggest
references to consult and analytical models she could use in her research, the
onus was on Clara rather than her supervisor to shape the project.

students?
Clara experienced a supervisory style during her undergraduate dissertation

reminiscent of Dysthe’s (2002) teaching model, while her master’s supervisor
appears to adopt a model more reminiscent of Gatfield’s (2005) laissez-faire
approach. Dysthe (2002), Gatfield (2005), and others (e.g., Brown & Atkins,
1988; Hockey, 1994, 1997; Lee, 2008, 2012; Salmon, 1992; Vilkinas, 2005)
reveal the diverse range of supervisory styles open to supervisors and the
difference in practices adopted from discipline to discipline (cf. Acker et al,
1994; Delamont et al., 2000; Golde, 2010; Halse, 2011) and even within the
same discipline (Burns, Lamm, & Lewis, 1999). However, the literature also
tells us that the supervisee and supervisor may have very different
conceptualizations of their roles. In Aspland’s (1999) and Krase’s (2007) case
studies, for instance, the focal international students both expected their
supervisors to be much more directive, helping them at every turn. Similarly,
Janet, our student who received very little supervision, expected the same and
was very upset when her expectations were not met.
Intriguingly, another of our supervisees, Victoria, began her
supervisory journey hoping for the same supervisory pedagogy as the
international students in Aspland’s (1999) and Krase’s (2007) studies, and Janet
in our study (“I’ve not done this before, I want to be told exactly what to do”;
Harwood & Petrić, 2017, p.71), but over the course of the dissertation came to
appreciate her supervisor’s later slackening of the reins to enable her to put her
own stamp on her project. And so Victoria’s preferred supervisory pedagogy
comes to align with the enacted pedagogy of her supervisor. But in the case of
Aspland’s and Krase’s supervisees, no such alignment ever takes place.
Scenario 3 doesn’t tell us whether accommodation is ever reached, but it
requires workshop participants to consider the extent to which supervisory
pedagogies can and should be negotiated: Should Clara simply accept her
160
supervisor’s enactment of supervision, or should she try to question and
challenge him? After all, the literature also reveals that many supervisors enact
what de Kleijn and colleagues (de Kleijn, Bronkhorst, Meijer, Pilot, &
Brekelmans, 2016; de Kleijn, Meijer, Brekelmans, & Pilot, 2015) call
“adaptive” supervisory pedagogy, varying their style and degree of
directiveness from student to student and during the course of a supervision
(see also Grant, 2010b; Hockey, 1996; and Lee, 2012 on supervisors’ ability to
“improvise” and to be “flexible”). If a supervisee makes clear s/he wishes the
supervisor to enact a different form of pedagogy, an adaptive supervisor may
well grant this wish—or at least go some way towards accommodating it. Clara
reportedly enjoyed a good relationship with her supervisor, but never in fact
requested a change of supervisory arrangements. Should she have done so?
Should lecturers and support tutors encourage students like Clara to make such
requests? If so, how? Or should students be encouraged to embrace a different
style of work to the one they are used to, trusting the supervisor’s assessment
of their actual needs? Workshop participants here have much to ponder as they
seek ways in which Clara’s needs could be addressed.
Problems with Supervisor–Supervisee Miscommunication

All of our cases, even those involving engaged, motivated, highly capable
students and diligent, assiduous supervisors, were tainted with
miscommunication of some kind. For instance, Clara and her supervisor
miscommunicated about the approach to data analysis she would take, the
miscommunication only surfacing 2 weeks before the dissertation submission
deadline. Consequently, Clara’s supervisor asked her to make major changes to
her draft analysis in a short space of time as he was unhappy with her approach.
In the Victoria/Harriet case, Victoria worked diligently on her dissertation
throughout, and relations with her supervisor were very amicable. Yet again
there was miscommunication that nearly had serious consequences. Victoria
was unaware that in her discipline and her research paradigm, it is essential for
readers to be given enough detail of methodological procedures to be able to
replicate the study. Harriet assumed Victoria would be aware of this
disciplinary/paradigmatic convention, but that wasn’t the case—and so here the
lack of communication led to important misunderstandings on Victoria’s part
and nearly cost her a distinction grade being awarded for her dissertation.
Scenario 4 below, however, presents data from our most extreme case,
in which miscommunication (or no communication at all) was apparent
throughout the course of the supervision. It is unfortunate that Janet, the
supervisee, was less able linguistically in our judgment than our other
supervisees (as evidenced by our interactions with her during nearly 10 hours
of interviews and our reading of around 23,000 words of her writing). Janet was
161
therefore in particular need of help, but despite her repeated requests, received
very little guidance from her supervisor.
Scenario 4: Communication problems with the supervisor

“In one email I will ask maybe five questions, but she maybe only
answer one.”
Janet: Supervisee
Janet emails questions about her dissertation method chapter and a

dissertation draft for feedback to her supervisor, but is very disappointed
with her supervisor’s response.
Although the dissertation submission deadline was in mid-September, the

department advised students to submit a full draft (or as close to it as
possible) by mid-August so that they could benefit from their supervisor’s
feedback. Janet took this deadline seriously, aware that “many students see
this deadline as the last and best opportunity to improve their work, so I try
my best to finish it before that deadline.” She submitted a draft of about 5,000
words, which basically consisted of an extended literature review. Only at
the end of the draft was there a brief paragraph about her study, which closed
with the following, rather vague, statement of the aim of her research; her
use of the term “scientific methodologies” revealing the lack of a concrete
research plan at that point, a month before the dissertation submission
deadline:
The aim of this research is to address the

process through a focus on [topic] by
scientific methodologies.
In the accompanying email to the supervisor, Janet wrote:
Dear XXX:
The attachment is my draft dissertation, I

didn’t finish it, but I hope you can have a
look and give me some advice.
I’ve finished the parts about […] theories,

(topics). Now I’m going to write research
method and case study.
My plan is: research method 2K [i.e., 2,000

162
words], case study 3K, discussion and critical
opinion 3K, limitation and future direction
500, conclusion 1K. That is 15,000 with 5k+
I’ve finished.
And, I have some questions about research

method. I heard from other students said that
we should write it based on the [research
methods module], which means we have to write
something like ontology or interpretative
approach. But I read some journals, the
methodology chapters are often very short and
written by their own language and it is not
that theoretical.
How can I write about this?
Besides, about the research, I tend to do it

with combination of observation, interview and
survey, to prove the theory as well as find
something is not mentioned in theories. What
do you think about it? Does it mean I have to
use critical approach of methodology? […].
And at last, thanks for your time! BTW, do I

have a deadline of submitting the final draft?
Thank you! And I’ll go for proof reading after
I finished the final draft, THX
Regards,
Janet
All Janet’s questions concerned research methodology, which she had

received practically no advice on up to this point, and which she had
struggled with. The supervisor responded the following day with an email of
just over 200 words, offering, once again, little specific advice. The only
evaluation of Janet’s 5,000-word draft was that it needed to be condensed to
create more space for the remaining parts of the dissertation, i.e., for her
actual study, which, the supervisor wrote, should be the longest part. As for
Janet’s question about whether she should draw on the research methods
module, she responded that the methodology chapter should show her
“understanding of the material” from the module but didn’t “need to follow
it.” Janet’s question about how to write about methodology received a brief
list of points the chapter should address, such as to explain the research
questions, to describe how she collected and analyzed data, and what ethical
163
issues emerged. The supervisor didn’t answer Janet’s questions about the
specific methods for her study, nor did she offer any comments on Janet’s
plan for the overall structure of her dissertation.
Talking about this email exchange in the interview, Janet didn’t try to hide
her anger:
And she didn’t read it [Janet’s dissertation draft] at all. And

what she said is just you need work to do. Of course I know I
need work to do. I know it, but I need the real advice about
my work.
She complained that, as before, her questions and her needs were being
ignored:
in one email I will ask maybe five questions, but she maybe
only answer one….

What should/could Janet have done to solve this problem?
What could Janet’s department do to prevent these kinds of situations from
happening?
students?
Workshop participants may well find it disturbing that only a month before the
dissertation deadline Janet is so vague about the methodology of her study.
Why was the design of her research not finalized long before? In fact, Janet had
sent survey questions to her supervisor much earlier in the supervision but had
received no feedback on them, and worked mostly alone in trying to figure out
the best way forward. Like Jay, Janet had been required to take a research
methods module to prepare her for her dissertation, but her knowledge of
methods and methodologies appears worryingly nebulous, even by this
advanced stage of her programme.
With such an obvious need for careful guidance and clear
communication, workshop participants will likely debate how less independent
students can and should be supervised, how far supervision should go, and how
communication should be effected in cases such as these. Options could include
regular face-to-face meetings and regular deadlines to produce short pieces of
writing; despite Janet’s repeatedly requesting face-to-face meetings, her
supervisor (who did not respond to our request to participate in our study) never
164
offered meetings to Janet, despite the fact that her department stipulated that
face-to-face meetings should take place. Neither did Janet ever find her
supervisor’s brief comments on her work specific or clear enough to adequately
guide her. Like the international student in Krase’s (2007) study, Janet’s case
is characterized by a supervisory dyad at odds regarding what they expect and
are prepared to offer; and poor communication only exacerbated this divide.
We cannot tell why Janet’s supervisor offered so little, or whether she sensed
Janet’s initial disappointment, which later turned to frustration and anger, at the
manner in which she was supervised. Nonetheless, we believe that better, more
regular communication could have enhanced Janet’s experience.
AN ADDITIONAL TEACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITY
We have provided four problem–solution scenarios that can be used by teaching

and learning practitioners and support tutors as workshop activities with
supervisors and supervisees on training and development programmes, alerting
participants to common issues arising in supervisions and leading to discussion
of supervisees’ social networks, problems interpreting supervisors’ feedback,
expectations regarding different supervisory roles and styles, and problems of
miscommunication. We have provided accompanying questions for reflection
at the end of each scenario, although of course the questions could be rewritten
depending on the context and audience (e.g., supervisees only, supervisors
only, a mixed supervisee–supervisor audience, etc.). These activities could also
be modified to address the needs of doctoral as opposed to master’s supervisees
and their supervisors. Indeed, in our experience of leading workshops for
supervisors, issues relevant to both master’s and doctoral supervision tend to
be raised, with the discussion sometimes bringing to light the differences
between the two—that is, why a particular course of action would be suitable
as part of master’s but not doctoral supervision and vice versa. While the
constraints and affordances of doctoral supervisory contexts will differ, as we
pointed out near the start of this paper, the literature is replete with narratives
of doctoral students’ difficulties that align with the themes uncovered in our
master’s study.
We close with a few words about an alternative activity to further
promote discussion and reflection.
The Undelivered Letter

We argued earlier that we were keen to avoid giving the impression that the
difficulties we have described are peculiar to international students; we can
easily imagine home students facing the same issues and struggles. But given
our focus on international students in this piece, it is appropriate to highlight
that international students’ previous educational experiences in their home
165
countries and any previous experiences of supervision there may have been
very different—as we saw in the case of Clara. This undelivered letter activity
would provide a vehicle for supervisees to describe these previous assumptions,
demystifying them for the support tutor, as explained below.
Support tutors who are approached by supervisees troubled or
dissatisfied with current supervision arrangements may ask the student to write
a letter to their supervisor detailing their frustration and its causes. The tutor
would make clear to the student that this letter would not be delivered to the
supervisor, but would be read by the support tutor in order to understand the
supervisee’s perspective and to then propose further action. (The fact the letter
will not be delivered is designed to encourage frankness on the part of the
supervisee.) For instance, the tutor may decide to mediate between student and
supervisor and suggest to the supervisor how altered supervisory arrangements
could better meet the student’s expectations. Another possibility would be that
the letter reveals to the tutor that the supervisee has what s/he would regard as
inappropriate expectations of supervision, and the tutor would then be able to
clarify what the supervisee is entitled to expect, perhaps with the aid of
departmental guidelines outlining the supervisory policy. Alternatively, the
support tutor may have supervisees keep diaries for a period during their
supervision, again charting their supervisory relationship and pinpointing the
causes of dissatisfaction.
In conclusion, we believe our activities will help supervisees,
supervisors, and teaching and learning instructors and support tutors to shed
light on the occluded genre of supervision, which often takes the form of “an
individualized and privatised affair” (Hockey, 1997, p. 65). We feel that
awareness-raising activities such as these will likely prove beneficial to staff
and students alike, and that our activities also have the advantage of being
derived from grounded, empirical data rather than being artificial situations that
may or may not ring true. We cannot claim they will lead discussants to
discover neat solutions; but these scenarios can be defended as embodying
some of the most common issues emerging from supervisory experiences as
attested by empirical data, and as vehicles for talk and reflection to prepare
discussants to enact their roles in a more informed manner.
REFERENCES
Acker, S., Hill, T., & Black, E. (1994). Thesis supervision in the social sciences:
Managed or negotiated? Higher Education, 28, 483–498.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383939
Aspland, T. (1999). “You learn round and I learn square”: Mei’s story. In Y.
Ryan & O. Zuber-Skerritt (Eds.), Supervising postgraduates from non-
166
English speaking backgrounds (pp. 25–39). Buckingham, United
Kingdom: SRHE and Open University Press.
Blakeslee, A. M. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning
to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business & Technical
Communication, 11, 125–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651997011002001
Brown, G., & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education.
London: Routledge.
Burns, R., Lamm, R., & Lewis, R. (1999). Orientations to higher degree
supervision: A study of supervisors and students in education. In A.
Holbrook & S. Johnston (Eds.), Supervision of postgraduate research in
education (pp. 55–74). Coldstream, Victoria: Australian Association for
Research in Education.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience:
Success and failure in graduate school. London: Falmer Press.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dysthe, O. (2002). Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: An
interview study with advisors and master’s degree students in three
disciplines in a Norwegian university. Written Communication, 19, 493–
544. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108802238010
Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles:
Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial
implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27,
311–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283585
Golde, C. (2010). Entering different worlds: Socialization into disciplinary
communities. In S. K. Gardner & P. Mendoza (Eds.), On becoming a
scholar: Socialization and development in doctoral education (pp. 79–
95). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Grant, B., & Graham, A. (1994). “Guidelines for discussion”: A tool for
managing postgraduate supervision. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan
(Eds.), Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 165–177). London: Kogan
Page.
Grant, B. M. (2008). Agonistic struggle: Master–slave dialogues in humanities
supervision. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 7, 9-27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022207084880
Grant, B. M. (2010a). Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales,
fictions and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 18(3), 337–354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500082483
167
Grant, B. M. (2010b). Improvising together: The play of dialogue in humanities
supervision. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 9, 271–288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022210379376
Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher
Education Research & Development, 24, 151–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500062953
Guerin, C., Kerr, H., & Green, I. (2015). Supervision pedagogies: Narratives
from the field. Teaching in Higher Education, 20, 107–118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.957271
Halse, C. (2011). “Becoming a supervisor”: The impact of doctoral supervision
on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 557–570.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594593
Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2017). Experiencing master’s supervision:
Perspectives of international students and their supervisors. Abingdon,
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Hockey, J. (1994). Establishing boundaries: Problems and solutions in
managing the PhD supervisor’s role. Cambridge Journal of Education,
24, 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764940240211
Hockey, J. (1996). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science
PhD students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 481–500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090409
Hockey, J. (1997). A complex craft: United Kingdom PhD supervision in the
social sciences. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2, 45–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13596749700200004
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual
writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in
written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
Kleijn, R. A. M., de Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans,
M. (2016). Understanding the up, back, and forward-component in
master’s thesis supervision with adaptivity. Studies in Higher Education,
41, 1463–1479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.980399
Kleijn, R. A. M., de Meijer, P. C., Brekelmans, M., & Pilot, A. (2015). Adaptive
research supervision: Exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical
knowledge. Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 117–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934331
Krase, E. (2007). “Maybe the communication between us was not enough”:
Inside a dysfunctional advisor/L2 advisee relationship. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 6, 55–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.12.001
168
Kuwahara, N. (2008). It’s not in the orientation manual: How a first-year
doctoral student learned to survive in graduate school. In C. P. Casanave
& X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate school:
Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation (pp. 186–200). Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral
research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 267–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202
Lee, A. (2012). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing
research. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Liu, L., Weiser, I., Silva, T., Alsup, J., Selfe, C., & Hawisher, G. (2008). It
takes a community of scholars to raise one: Multiple mentors as key to
my growth. In C. P. Casanave & X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy
practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic
enculturation (pp. 166–183). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining
time, place and knowledge. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A., & Jazvac-Martek, M. (2012).
“Untold” doctoral stories: Can we move beyond cultural narratives of
neglect? Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 511–523.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559199
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Education
indicators in focus. Available at http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-
beyond-school/EDIF%202013--N°14%20
Paltridge, B. (2004). The exegesis as a genre: an ethnographic investigation. In
L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:
Contextualized frameworks (pp. 84–103). London: Continuum.
Salmon, P. (1992). Achieving a PhD—Ten students’ experience. Stoke-on-
Trent: Trentham Books.
Schneider, M. L., & Fujishima, N. K. (1995). When practice doesn’t make
perfect: The case of a graduate ESL student. In D. Belcher & G. Braine
(Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and
pedagogy (pp. 3–22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Seloni, L. (2012). Academic literacy socialization of first year doctoral students
in US: A micro-ethnographic perspective. English for Specific Purposes,
31, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.05.004
Starfield, S., & Ravelli, L.J. (2006). “The writing of this thesis was a process
that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical
sociologist”: Self and structure in New Humanities research theses.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 222–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.004
169
Taha, N., & Cox, A. (2016). International students’ networks: A case study in
a UK university. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 182–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927851
Todd, M. J., Smith, K., & Bannister, P. (2006). Supervising a social science
undergraduate dissertation: Staff experiences and perceptions. Teaching
in Higher Education, 11, 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500527693
Turner, G. (2015). Learning to supervise: Four journeys. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 52, 86–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981840
UNESCO. (2016). Global flow of tertiary international students. Available at
http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow
Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback
and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 53, 185–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592
Vilkinas, T. (2005). The supervisor’s role as manager of the PhD journey. In
P. Green (Ed.), Supervising postgraduate research: Contexts and
processes, theories and practices (pp. 163–177). Melbourne: RMIT
University Press.
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic literacy socialization of Mexican
exchange students at a Canadian university (Unpublished PhD thesis).
University of British Columbia.
Zappa-Hollman, S., & Duff, P. A. (2015). Academic English socialization
through individual networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 333–368.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.188
NIGEL HARWOOD, PhD, is a Reader in Applied Linguistics at the

University of Sheffield, UK. His research interests include international
students’ experiences with academic writing, citation analysis, and TESOL
textbooks and teaching materials. He has published in various international
journals across the disciplines of applied linguistics and higher education,
including Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Second Language Writing, Written
Communication, and Studies in Higher Education. He has edited volumes with
CUP and Palgrave Macmillan, and is co-editor of the Elsevier journal English
for Specific Purposes. Email: n.harwood@sheffield.ac.uk
BOJANA PETRIĆ, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the Department of Applied

Linguistics and Communication at Birkbeck, University of London. She has
published in the area of academic writing, particularly source use and citing, in
journals such as the Journal of Second Language Writing, Language Teaching,
170
and Written Communication. She serves as the Deputy Chair of the European
Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing and the Book Review Editor
of the Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Email: b.petric@bbk.ac.uk
Manuscript submitted: June 28, 2018

Accepted for publication: September 18, 2018
171

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 172–191
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.275
ojed.org/jis
Academic and Social Support Services for

International Students: Current
Practices
Nara M. Martirosyan, Rebecca M. Bustamantea and D. Patrick Saxona
Abstract: International students make valuable intellectual, cultural, and economic contributions
to host-country colleges and universities. Some U.S. institutions enrolling greater numbers of
international students offer a variety of specialized services designed to support students’ social
adjustment, academic achievement, and language development in ways that potentially lead to
greater retention and international student engagement. In this exploratory study, researchers
analyzed website content to describe the types of support services offered by the top 20 U.S.
universities with the greatest enrollment of international students in 2016. Implications are offered
for U.S. higher education leaders interested in offering services to attract, support, and retain
international students in an uncertain national political environment.
Keywords: academic support, international students, social support
Introduction
For decades, universities around the world have been intellectually, culturally, and
educationally enriched by the enrollment of international students, who bring a plethora
of experiences, perspectives, and skills to host country institutions. Researchers highlight
the valuable perspectives and experiences that international students bring to intellectual
environments, enhancing innovation and contributing to the development of global
perspectives among all students (Alvarez, 2016; Hegarty, 2014; Luo & Jamieson-Drake,
2013; Perry, 2016). Universities also have benefitted from the economic contributions
of international student enrollment. This has been particularly evident in colleges and
universities in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.
In the United States, since 1954, universities experienced steady increases in
international student enrollments, which continued over several decades (Institute for
International Education [IIE], 2016b). During the 2015–2016 academic year, over one
million international students were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, comprising
5.2% of the overall student population and contributing nearly $36 billion to the U.S.
a Sam Houston State University.

Academic and Social Support Services for International Students 173
economy (IIE, 2016a). Consequently, many college administrators in the United States
came to rely upon the sustained enrollment of full-time international undergraduate
students as a basis for financial planning and future enrollment projections (Loudenback,
2016).
Despite steady growth in international student enrollment in recent decades, U.S.
higher education leaders began observing rapid decreases in international student
applications and enrollment in 2017, likely in response to government immigration
reforms, changes to policies for issuing international student visas, U.S. travel bans
targeting specific countries, and a surge in nationalist politics (Patel, 2017). As such,
academic and social support services for international students are essential to continued
international student matriculation, engagement, and success in U.S. higher education
(Cetinkaya-Yildiz, Cakir, & Kondakci, 2011; Cho & Yu, 2015; Hegarty, 2014).
IIE, a U.S.-based non-profit organization located in New York, publishes an annual
report on international student exchange and enrollment in the United States titled the
Open Doors Report. The 2016 Open Doors Reportlisted the top 20 U.S.-based universities
that consistently host notably higher numbers of international students than other U.S.
universities (IIE, 2016b). A complete list of these universities is presented in Table 1. All
20 universities listed in the Open Doors Reportprovide a wide range of specialized student
support services designed to meet the unique needs of international students and, in the
case of long-term graduate students, their families.
The purpose of this study was to describe the types of academic and social support
services provided by each of the top 20 universities named in the Open Doorsreport
(IIE, 2016b). This research was exploratory and descriptive in nature and did not
account for international students’ perceptions of the value and quality of the U.S.
university support services provided. However, results from this research provide a starting
place for more in-depth future research on how international students at these top 20
universities might experience the support services described and the extent of perceived
value of these services from the perspectives of enrolled international students. Despite
the volatility of internationalism in higher education environments, many American
universities are committed to enacting, at minimum, first order changes—or initial
programmatic interventions that support multiculturalism (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller,
2014). Universities interested in attracting and retaining international students might
benefit from learning what other U.S. universities are attempting to do to support the
academic success and social integration of international students.
Literature Review
The value of international exchange and international students on U.S. college campuses
cannot be underestimated. Hegarty (2014) argued that although U.S. universities may
recognize the value of enrolling international students, many of them fail to understand
the scale of influence international students bring as a vital component to higher
education, particularly because they enrich university environments intellectually and
culturally (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013).
For decades, U.S. higher education researchers have stressed that college-sponsored
student success programs are important to the academic success and engagement of all
174 Martirosyan, Bustamante and Saxon
Table 1. International student enrollment at top 20 institutions.
University name International student enrollment

New York University 15,543
University of Southern California 13,340
Arizona State University - Tempe 12,751
Columbia University 12,740
University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign 12,085
Northeastern University–Boston 11,702
University of California–Los Angeles 11,513
Purdue University 10,563
Boston University 8,455
University of Washington 8,259
Michigan State University 8,256
University of Texas–Dallas 8,145
Penn State University–University Park 8,084
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 7,630
University of California–San Diego 7,556
University of California–Berkeley 7,313
Indiana University–Bloomington 7,159
Ohio State University–Columbus 7,117
Carnegie Mellon University 7,051
University of Minnesota–Twin Cities 7,037
Note. From "2016 Fast Facts," by the Institute for International Education, 2016 (https://ww
w.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-Infographics/Fast-Facts). In
the public domain.
students (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005; Tinto, 1998). For international students and,
in some cases, their families, university-based academic and social support services have
been highlighted as key to international student success and continued matriculation
in higher education institutions (Cho &Yu, 2015; Glass, Gomez, & Urzua, 2014; Zhang
& Goodson, 2011; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). Researchers also have indicated that
international students experience unique challenges related to their social adjustment and
academics that often require specialized support services (Andrade, 2006; Hendrickson,
Rosen, & Aune, 2011; Perry, 2016; Zhang & Goodson, 2011).
In recent years, however, some global scholars (Rose-Redwood, 2017; Tardy, 2017;
Vasiloupolos, 2016) have argued for a more nuanced, critical view of research on
international students’ experiences, particularly as extant research has focused on
students who attend Western Anglophone universities or institutions located in Australia,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. As more
countries around the world (e.g., China, India) offer increasing opportunities that attract
international students, critical scholars are calling for more expansive research that goes
beyond a focus on academic and social adjustment and acculturation. Despite this recent
call in response to heightened global tensions, for purposes of this study on support
services offered by top enrolling U.S. universities, we briefly reviewed the extant literature
on international student support needs from a programmatic perspective. This review also
includes information on suggested best practices in supporting international students.
Social Adjustment Challenges of International Students in the United

States
Adjustment in academic settings describes the extent to which there is a “fit” between
students and the academic environment (Andrade, 2006). Overall, when compared
to host country students, international students are more likely to experience anxiety,
homesickness, and stress in adjusting to college (Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008).
Separation from close family and friends, lack of comfort and familiarity with different
cultural practices (e.g., foods and social customs), social isolation, and challenges
with host country language proficiency contribute to challenges with social adjustment
(Johnson & Sandhu, 2007; Khawaja & Stallman, 2011).
Researchers (e.g., Ebinger, 2011; Jackson, Ray, & Bybell, 2013) have examined various
contributing factors to social adjustment of international students. Friendship is cited
as an important social adjustment factor. In fact, social support is highlighted as one of
the most essential determinants of the psychological well-being of international students
(Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003). Many scholars emphasize that international students’
adjustment in U.S. colleges is contingent on how well students can establish social
networks with various campus groups including peer groups, clubs, recreational sports,
and other activities that facilitate social involvement on campus (Hwang, Martirosyan, &
Moore, 2016).
Chavajay (2013) distinguished between instrumental supportand social emotional
supportin describing international students’ social relationships. Instrumental support
represents the kind of support a friend might provide in the form of a study session,
a planned social activity, or by assisting with transportation. Although instrumental
support involves interaction and purpose, the level of intimacy and engagement remains
at a more superficial level and rarely compensates for the social–emotional support that
close friends or family members provide (Chavajay, 2013). Chavajay (2013) reported that
international students tended to gain more social–emotional satisfaction from interacting
with other international students than from host country friends, perhaps because
of empathy for feeling like an outsider. As students establish friendships with other
international students, as well as host country peers, study results indicate that they
experience greater social adjustment (Ebinger, 2011; Rienties & Nolan, 2014). To facilitate
the social adjustment of international students on campus, universities can promote
programs that facilitate the formation of friendships among international students, as well
as with host country nationals (Ebinger, 2011).
Cho and Yu (2015) examined the role of university support in determining international
students’ well-being. Positive effects of university support were found on two
dimensions—university support increased the college-life satisfaction of international
students and reduced their psychological stress. International students typically sense
fewer feelings of belongingness within the college community compared to domestic
students who commonly connect with family and communities outside of the university.
Overall, researchers find that international students tend to be more actively engaged in
college and identify more with a university when they receive university-based support
(Cho & Yu, 2015;Glass et al., 2014; Zhang & Goodson, 2011).
Academic Challenges of International Students in the United States

Although academic pursuits are reported as a primary goal for most international students,
Choi (2006) emphasized that minimal research has addressed the academic adjustment
of international students, compared to other areas of adjustment (e.g., acculturation,
psychological adjustment). Much of the extant literature (e.g., Andrade, 2006; Araujo,
2011) focuses on a discussion of the critical role of English language proficiency on the
academic achievement of international students because many international students
studying in the United States do not speak English as their first language and, therefore,
struggle with language challenges in college.
Some scholars have examined relationships between English language proficiency and
academic difficulties (Martirosyan, Hwang, & Wanjohi, 2015; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007).
Lee (2013) described how students who do not speak English as a native language often
have difficulty meeting expectations of U.S. classrooms, where class participation is both
encouraged and often graded. Language challenges make it particularly difficult to engage
in discussions and communicate effectively in the classroom. Linguistic and cultural
differences contribute to student difficulty with assignments, particularly when in-class
participation and group collaboration are required (Lee, 2013). In some countries (e.g.,
China), academic standards often are centered on memorization and task repetition
(Kennedy, 2002) rather than group work and classroom interaction and participation,
making the need for English language fluency even more essential to academic success.
Results from some studies suggest that limited English language proficiency levels
have cumulative effects on international student adjustment. Language proficiency was
found to be a significant predictor of academic difficulties and academic stress (Poyrazli
& Kavanaugh, 2006), which then led to acculturative stress in the forms of depression or
anxiety (Dao, Lee & Chang, 2007; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006). Because they are unable
to accomplish their educational goals due to limited English language proficiency, many
international students could feel forced to leave college (Martirosyan et al., 2015).
Mismatches in culturally rooted academic expectations can strain international
students’ interactions and relationships with professors or academic advisors, which
consequently impacts their academic adjustment (Hung & Hyun, 2010; Kim, 2007;
Mukminin & McMahon, 2013; Sato & Hodge, 2009). International students likely
encounter fundamental cultural differences (e.g., classroom norms, teaching and
learning styles, procedures, discourse and communication, and professor–student and
student–student interactions) among education systems (Hung & Hyun, 2010). Often,
even though general university-sponsored academic support services are available,
international students may have difficulty accessing these services due to a lack of
awareness and unfamiliarity with the system. Because support services are likely not a
typical university function in their native countries, students might be unaccustomed to
seeking them out (Lee, 2013).
In addition to academic challenges, international students and visiting scholars have

expressed feelings of powerlessness in a higher education system that determines their
educational visa status, or even financial and living resources (Hwang et al., 2016).
Some universities make an ombudsperson available as an advocate to assist students
with visa processing and scholarships (Lee, 2013). The ombudsperson typically has the
responsibility to ensure confidentiality in assisting students with resolving conflicts, and
to handle concerns with discrimination, harassment, and unfair treatment.
Administrators’ and Professors’ Views of International Students’

Challenges and Support Needs
Some survey studies (e.g., Redden, 2014; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000)
have focused on university administrators’ and professors’ perceptions of international
students. These perceptions are important to consider because they can influence the type
and degree of university support services offered. Overall, in most of the studies reviewed,
professors generally recognized that international students face unique personal and
academic challenges when compared to domestic students. Professors believed that
English language proficiency was a primary challenge, followed by cultural differences,
unfamiliarity with host country educational systems, and modes of instruction (Robertson
et al., 2000).
Sometimes, the views of college administrators and international students differ. In
a survey of international students (n = 517) and international education administrators
(n = 480), best student support practices were identified and compared (Redden,
2014). Students namely identified financial support as highly important—in the form
of scholarships and campus-based jobs—along with career services, academic advising,
and campus-life activities. Financial support was identified as the “primary source of
dissatisfaction” for international students in a comparative study by Schulmann and
Choudaha (2014, p. 6). Administrators in the Redden (2014) study, however, shared
different perspectives, citing academic support and campus acculturation programs
as important practices. Specific programs mentioned included campus employment,
orientation programs, early warning systems for academic and visa issues, and traditional
academic support such as tutoring and writing programs. Based on these findings,
the researcher suggested that international students often underestimate the amount of
academic preparation needed for success and overestimate the potential to work, earn
scholarships, and obtain other forms of financial assistance. Conversely, administrators
demonstrated a limited understanding of the importance of financial challenges. Redden
(2014) therefore recommended that college administrators better inform and prepare
students about academic and financial expectations during the recruiting process so that
students may be better equipped to address these challenges prior to their arrival.
Campus Support Services: Suggested Best Practices

A number of scholars (e.g., Cho & Yu, 2015; Glass et al., 2014; Zhang & Goodson,
2011) have emphasized the important role of university support programs and services
for international student success and matriculation in higher education. Challenges
associated with provision of such services also have been noted in existing literature along
with some recommendations on how to best support international students (Education
Advisory Board, 2014). A study entitled 17 High Impact Practices to Ensure Student
Success released by the Education Advisory Board (2014) offers some strategies on how to
support international students on campus. Those strategies are centered on navigating
campus transitions, revamping academic integrity initiatives, developing customized
career resources, and recalibrating mental health outreach. Similarly, the Center for Global
Education at California State University (2014) presented a list of innovative practices
on international student support implemented at various U.S. colleges and universities.
Services and programs on academics, language support, career development, and mental
wellness support are among the many practices presented.
In order for support services to be effective and serve their purpose, Tillman (1990)
noted the importance of institutional commitment. He stated that when designing
support services, international students’ academic and personal needs should be
considered. This in turn would make the services more meaningful for international
students. More recently, in a study exploring international students’ views regarding
campus support services in Australia, Roberts, Boldy, and Dunworth (2015) reiterated
the need for “more student-centered service structure and delivery” (p. 122). They
also discussed the issue of awareness, which echoed the findings of an earlier study by
Harrybam, Guilfoyle, and Knight (2012), who reported a “gap between service provision
and utilization” (p. 3). It is therefore imperative for institutions not only to consider the
implementation of best practices based on their students’ needs, but also to think about
ways of increasing awareness of the available services and access to those services.
Research Method
This exploratory, descriptive study was designed to obtain an overview of the types of
academic and social support services offered to international students enrolled at the top
20 U.S. universities with the highest matriculation of international student enrollment
in 2016, as reported in the 2016 Open Doors Report (IIE, 2016b). The research question
guiding this study was: What types of academic and support services were offered to
international students by U.S. universities with the greatest number of international
student enrollments in 2016? The purpose of this particular study was to describe the types
of services offered on U.S. university websites as a starting place for uncovering how these
universities attempt to attract and support international students during their campus
enrollment. As such, limitations to using website-based data are acknowledged given that
websites might not be up to date in describing the actual services offered. Additionally, we
recognize that while reporting on institutional offerings provides an exploratory profile of
services offered, it does not account for how international students may be experiencing
the quality of these services in supporting academic achievement and a sense of belonging
on campus. However, our objective in carrying out this study was to identify academic
and social support services offered to international students in a selected number of U.S.
universities that enrolled the greatest number of international students in 2016 as one way
to provide a profile of the potential programs higher education institutions might offer.
Sample
The sample consisted of 20 universities (see Table 1) that were identified as top hosting
universities by IIE (2016b) in their 2016 Open Doorsreport. These universities were located
in 12 different states and had international student populations ranging from slightly over
7,000 (University of Minnesota–Twin Lakes, which was the 20th on the list) to over 15,500
(New York University [NYU], which was the first on the list). Although the top hosting
universities change slightly from year to year, some U.S. institutions consistently appear
on the list. In the 2016 Open Doors report, NYU and the University of Southern California
(USC) were two of the campuses hosting the greatest numbers of international students
for 3 consecutive years. Both universities also are known to provide extensive academic
and social support services for international students.
Among the top 20 institutions, international student enrollment percentage in relation
to overall student enrollment ranged from over 10% (The Ohio State University) to
over 40% (Carnegie Mellon University; Northeastern University–Boston). In eight
universities (NYU, USC, Arizona State University–Tempe [ASU–Tempe], Columbia
University, University of California–Los Angeles [UCLA], Purdue University, Boston
University, University of Texas at Dallas [UT–Dallas]), international students contributed
to overall student enrollment by approximately 25%, to slightly over 30%. These
percentages were calculated using data provided in the Open Doors report, and publicly
available enrollment numbers obtained from the institutions’ websites.

This study used data available through individual websites of all 20 U.S. universities listed
in the report. Information on international student demographics, as well as on academic
and social support services that are designed to support international students at these
institutions, was obtained from the international office’s webpage of each institution
and entered into Microsoft Excel for further examination and analysis. Each university
included in the sample had several programs and services listed, all of which were included
in the data set. Caution was applied to ensure accuracy of the collected data by double
checking and comparing all entries with descriptions of programs and services provided
on the institutional websites.
A content analysis approach (Krippendorff, 2013) was then applied to determine the
types of services offered at each of the 20 universities. All specialized programs and
services were coded through several cycles (Saldana, 2016), tallied to determine frequency
of offerings, and grouped to ascertain which specialized services were most commonly
offered to international students at the institutions in the sample. As a result, six themes
were interpreted through the content analysis process. These themes, along with their
relevant codes are presented in Table 2.
Results
All 20 top host universities had a designated administrative unit overseeing services offered
to international students most commonly called the Office of International Students and
Scholars. Other names included: International Center, Office of Global Services, and
Table 2. Emergent themes and relevant codes.
Theme Relevant codes

English language programs English classes
Language exchange; Conversation partners
American culture and conversation class
American language program
English conversation hours
Practical English tutorials
Accent reduction sessions
Academic support and student success initiatives New student orientation
Advising and counseling
Academic tips
Workshops/webinars on U.S. academic life
Tutoring
Supplemental instruction
Targeted writing support Writing centers
Writing consultants
Social and cultural events International Education Week
Global festivals
World fair
Heritage and culture celebrations
Meet-and-greet receptions
Sightseeing trips
Weekly coffee hour
Global siblings program
Global student mentors program
Professional development workshops Job search strategies
Finance management
Tax preparation
Family member programs Support programs
English classes
Day care
International Students and Programs Office. Furthermore, the majority of international

students studying in participating institutions came from countries where English was not
the official language or was rarely spoken as a primary household language. Information
on international student demographics obtained through annual reports, as well as quick
facts available online, revealed that China, India and South Korea were the top three
countries of origin for international students in 13 out of 20 participant institutions. Often,
the total number of international students coming from these countries comprised more
than half of the overall international student enrollment. Students from China were the
most represented in the majority (18) of top 20 institutions. Overall, this view is consistent
with the Open Doorreport (IIE, 2016b), which listed China and India as the top two
countries of origin for international students, and South Korea as the fourth country of
origin.
Content analysis of academic and social support services offered by participant
institutions yield six themes: English language programs, academic support and student
success initiatives, targeted writing support, social and cultural events, professional
development workshops, and family member programs. Table 2 displays all six themes
with relevant codes. It is important to note that all these services were available to
international students free of charge except English classes for which fees were charged.
English Language Programs

English language programs were the most prevalent programs offered at participant
campuses. This was not a surprise given the profile of international student demographics
noted earlier. Every institution had some type of program designed to enhance
international students’ English language proficiency as needed. Most of the English
language programs offered classes at various levels of fluency and aimed to develop skills
in listening, speaking, and academic writing and reading. Other language development
related classes included: language exchange; American culture and conversation class;
American language program focused on listening, speaking, and pronunciation; English
conversation hour (ECH); practical English tutorials; and accent reduction sessions. A
common practice was having an English Language Institute, which offered various levels
of English classes (e.g., basic, advanced) for international students (and for anyone else
who is interested in learning English). In most cases, fees were assessed for these courses.
One institution (Boston University) also had customized short- and long-term professional
English language courses available to its students. English courses for students in specific
disciplines (e.g., engineering, business, law) are offered in addition to generic English
courses that are available to those who want to generally improve their English language
skills (Boston University Global Programs, n.d.).
An ECH was another initiative offered at some of the campuses highlighted in the
report. For example, at UT–Dallas (n.d.-b), English conversations are held regularly
and focus on improving English skills via conversation, written activities, and games.
These sessions also are structured to cultivate understanding and knowledge of American
culture. Similarly, ASU–Tempe (n.d.) promotes ongoing ECHs as a “safe space” for
international students “to practice their English speaking skills in a small, interactive
group.” Participants would either pursue topics of interest for conversation, or the
organizers would offer a selection of topics to choose from once participants came to the
ECH.
A program called Language Exchange was offered in one of the universities (Dashew
Center for International Students and Scholars, UCLA [Dashew Center], n.d.-a) where
an international student is paired with a native English speaker to practice language
skills. Interestingly, this program also serves domestic students who are learning foreign
languages. For example, if a native American speaker is learning Chinese and wants to
be exposed to a native Chinese speaker, then he/she could sign up and be paired with a
Chinese international student in campus. A similar initiative called Conversation Partners
was offered at Indiana University–Bloomington (2017) with the same focus of improving
language skills of paired students.
Finally, one institution provided speech therapy to all students to include accent
reductionsessions available to nonnative English speakers interested in speech therapy
services. These sessions are conducted by speech-language pathologists who also offer
speech therapy services for students who “have experienced strokes, traumatic brain
injury or other acquired brain injury” (UT–Dallas, n.d.-a). As stated on the university
website, “the goal is to make accent speech easier to understand by improving sound
production, intonation, stress, and rate of speech” (UT–Dallas, n.d.-a). Speech therapy for
accent modification improvement in a target language has been considered an acceptable
practice among language acquisition specialists and does not necessarily imply that
accents are negatively perceived and should be reduced or eliminated (Chakraborty, 2017).
In some cases, speech therapy has been included as part of a language acquisition process
in language academies for accent modification (Brady, Duewer, & King, 2016).
Academic Support and Student Success Initiatives

All of the top 20 host universities listed in the 2016 Open Doorsreport offered various
academic support and student services programs to international students. These
programs included: new student orientation, advising and counseling, academic tips,
workshops and webinars on U.S. academic life, tutoring, and supplemental instruction.
Not surprising, new student orientation was the most commonly offered event, which
was usually held upon international students’ arrival to their campuses. Such orientation
sessions were mandatory. Advising and counseling were also offered, although not every
institution in the sample referenced these services through their International Office’s
website so that international students could easily access this information (e.g., location,
contact information, advising hours, etc.).
Workshops and webinars on U.S. academic life included topics such as academic
integrity, classroom expectations, and success in an American classroom. Some
institutions offered similar information in a narrative form entitled Academic Tips.
Tutoring was another service available, not only in form of drop-in face-to-face sessions,
but also online. Several institutions had both tutorial videos and online live tutoring
available to international students. Finally, supplemental instruction was offered at
some of the participant institutions. Like many other academic support initiatives,
supplemental instruction was also available to all students, not just international students.
Targeted Writing Support

The next theme present in the data from participant institutions was targeted writing
support. Although this theme could have been combined with the academic support
and success services theme, we decided to identify it as a separate category because the
service was focused on writing only. Two codes were present under this theme: writing
centers and writing consultants. Like several other services and programs mentioned
so far, writing centers were also available to all students, not just international students.
However, in some cases, the centers had staff members who were knowledgeable on how
to work specifically with international or English as a Second Language students. A notable
writing assistance service for graduate students was the availability of writing consultants
at one of the institutions (ASU–Tempe). Graduate students could schedule a one-on-
one writing appointment with a writing consultant who would help them improve their
graduate writing skills, as well as offer advice on how to navigate graduate life and be
successful.
Social and Cultural Events

Participant institutions in this study organized a number of social and cultural activities
for international students (see Table 2). International Education Week (IEW) was the
most common event, followed by global festivals, world fairs, heritage and cultural
celebrations, meet-and-greet receptions, sightseeing trips, weekly coffee hours, a global
siblings program, and a global student mentors program. IEW is a nationwide initiative by
the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education and is “an opportunity
to celebrate the benefits of international education and exchange worldwide” (Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, n.d.). Within IEW, institutions
offered a series of events aimed to “promote international understanding and build
support for international education exchange” (NYU, n.d.-a).
At some of the participant institutions in this study, multicultural exchange and
understanding was promoted through global festivals, world fairs, and heritage and
cultural celebrations. During such events, international students and scholars from
various countries came together and shared their culture with the host university
community. A common attribute seen in those events was the organization of cultural
exhibits and demonstrations, which often included food from around the world. Meet-
and-greet receptions were commonly organized for international students to welcome
them and introduce them to host community members. Sightseeing trips were
implemented to give international students opportunities to visit places and learn more
about the American culture and people.
Other notable initiatives under the social and cultural events theme were: weekly coffee
hours, global siblings programs, and global student mentors programs. During weekly
coffee hours, institutions provide an informal setting for conversation, networking, and
making friendships. For example, Michigan State University (2017a) has a weekly coffee
hour every Friday during the Fall and Spring semesters. Students are encouraged to enjoy
free coffee and tea and to be engaged in their university community. The global siblings
program at UCLA (Dashew Center, n.d.-c) pairs domestic students with international
students to offer an opportunity to develop friendships, facilitate international students’

transition into the American environment, and give local students a chance to learn
about other cultures around the world. Similarly, the global student mentors program
at Northeastern University (2017) engages international and domestic students to offer
“social, academic, and educational support” through a variety of activities such as
mentoring, orientations, workshops, and networking activities. Overall, the list of activities
offered by the institutions chosen for this study is diverse and offers multiple opportunities
for international students to be engaged and connected to their host campuses.
Professional Development Workshops

Offering professional development workshops and information sessions on various topics
such as tax preparation, job search strategies, and other topics of interest to international
students was a common practice in the top 20 host universities. Examples of tax
preparation assistance come from the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State, 2017)
and Michigan State University (2017b). Free tax preparation assistance is available to
international students and scholars at Penn State (University Park campus) through a
local non-profit organization called Global Connections. Michigan State University also
offers free tax preparation seminars and tax filing sessions, and encourages international
students and scholars to take advantage of the help. Tax preparation is among a list
of topics covered in information sessions for international students at Washington State
University (n.d.).
While in the U.S., it is common for international students to seek job opportunities
both during and after completing their studies. Several universities in the sample (e.g.,
USC, NYU) provided resources and professional development workshops on job search
processes and strategies. Sessions on optional practical training and curricular practical
training were the most prevalent sessions in all institutions included in the study.
Family Member Programs

Notable initiatives offered to family members of international students included support
programs for spouses of international students, English classes, and childcare centers.
For example, UCLA organizes a spouses’ circle, a weekly get-together for the spouses of
international students that offers them opportunities to be engaged in various activities
implemented by the Center for International Students and Scholars (Dashew Center, n.d.-
b). A similar initiative is implemented at NYU (n.d.-b) where spouses and partners of
international students meet and share “common interests and concerns as well as explore
NYC together.” NYU also offers noncredit English classes for international spouses and
partners.
Carnegie Mellon University, another institution in the sample, also has support
programs for family members of international students. Within the University, there
are two organizations that support international spouses and partners: an International
Spouses and Partners Organization and The International Women’s Association of
Pittsburg. The International Spouses and Partners Organization “provides opportunities
for spouses and partners from different cultural backgrounds to share their cultures,
enjoy social activities, and make friends,” and the Women’s Association “offers English
conversation classes, international cooking, crafts, and programs about world customs
and culture” (Carnegie Mellon University, 2017).
Although not restricted to international students and their families, another example of
a family support initiative is available at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
This University has day care centers and preschools for children, aged 6 weeks to 6 years
old (Illinois International, n.d.). International students can apply and enroll their children
into half- or full-day programs, depending on the age of their children.
Additional Observations
In reviewing individual websites during the data collection process, several observations
were made. Most of the universities in the sample had user-friendly websites. Detailed
handbooks, guides, and FAQs included on the websites offered information not only
on academic-related matters, but also on housing, getting to know the community,
regulations, and procedures on obtaining a drivers’ license, just to name a few. Moreover,
quick links to additional resources available through the university and community
also were available through the international offices’ websites. In some cases, specific
resources for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as visiting scholars, were
included in separate links making them easy to navigate. Finally, live chats, virtual tours,
student testimonies, and newsletters for current and prospective international students
and their families are some of the additional features available on some of the participant
institutions’ websites.
Implications for Practice

University-level support has been demonstrated as essential to international student
success in host universities and societies (Cho & Yu, 2015). In general, international
students who study in the United States report that specialized support services are a factor
that attracts them to apply and enroll in certain universities over others (Cho & Yu, 2015;
Glass et al., 2014; Zhang & Goodson, 2011; Zhao et al., 2005). International students report
seeking out institutions they perceive will facilitate their social and academic adjustment
in ways that enhance their social integration, retention, and college success (Cetinkaya-
Yildiz et al., 2011; Cho & Yu, 2015). The provision of student support services such as those
identified in this study are increasingly important for American colleges and universities
as changes in government immigration policies and general enrollment trends impact the
recruitment and application of students from abroad. Results from a study commissioned
in March of 2017 by six higher education groups affirmed decreases in the number of
undergraduate and graduate applications to U.S. colleges by international students as
a result of more recent policies restricting immigration and banning student visas from
specified countries (Patel, 2017). In overseas recruitment sessions, some higher education
administrators reported that potential international students expressed concerns over
the 2017 U.S. travel bans and, therefore, hesitated to apply for U.S. visa authorization.
Other potential international students expressed concerns about campus climates, and
the quality and amount of support they might receive if they venture to enroll in an
American university (Patel, 2017).
Concern about how tuition and living expenses are financed also can contribute to
public resistance to international student enrollment and provision of support services
at U.S. universities. Policy makers sometimes assume that the universities are providing
international students with numerous scholarships. Contrary to common misconceptions
about how international students’ studies are funded, the U.S. Department of Commerce
reported that most of the funds used to pay international student tuition and expenses
originated from sources outside of the United States (IIE, 2016a). In fact, 75% of costs were
paid from international students’ personal or family funds, and from non-U.S. government
(country of origin) and international university resources (IIE, 2016a). Interestingly,
international student enrollment therefore provides a key funding source during a time
when many U.S. public universities are experiencing funding retrenchment. Conversely,
findings from this study did not indicate systematic efforts to provide scholarships or
other means of funding specifically targeted to international students. No particular
programs to address college financing and funding availability were identified either.
Implications of lack of institution-based funding are apparent and align with findings
by Schulmann and Choudaha (2014), who reported that international students were
dissatisfied with financial support from host universities. In addition to providing targeted
funding for international students, educating them about the expense of living in the
United States and attending college remains important. Based on the extant research, we
suggest that university administrators recognize the educational, cultural, and economic
benefits of enrolling and retaining international students. Administrators can demonstrate
recognition of these benefits by ensuring that specialized support services attracting and
retaining international students are in place.
Similar to the services of the top 20 universities examined in this study, higher education
administrators at other U.S. institutions are encouraged to recognize the extent to which
international students are critical to strategic planning efforts. In general, studying abroad
can be a daunting, overwhelming experience for students. However, by demonstrating
intentionality in ensuring that specialized social, financial, and academic support services
are in place, colleges can be well-positioned to facilitate the adaptation and integration
of international students on U.S. campuses in ways that mirror the initiatives of the top
universities included in this study.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This study has recognized limitations. The purpose of the study was to describe the
types of support services offered to international students at the top 20 U.S. universities
hosting the greatest number of international students in 2016 and to discuss implications
for universities interested in expanding and improving support services for international
students. We recognize that information presented on websites may not be as current or
accurate as presented. Moreover, from the data available, it was not possible to evaluate
students’ experiences with and perceptions of the quality of programs and services offered.
Exploring international students’ experiences with the services described and their general
sense of belonging within those top 20 university environments would be a next step in
expanding this research.
For future research, we recommend further examining the efficacy of the services
offered by participant institutions, as well as how these services might relate to
international students’ sense of belonging on campus. This could be done by obtaining
direct feedback from international students who potentially benefit from these services.
Personnel involved in the provision of services could also be surveyed or interviewed to
get insights on the effectiveness of the services and programs offered.
Second, as noted earlier, most of the universities in the sample had user-friendly
websites with detailed information on academic and social support services offered.
However, from the information available, it was not possible to make any conclusions
on how these institutions view their international students, or how decisions are made
on which services to offer. In further research, we recommend surveying international
office personnel representing participant institutions to find out not only how decisions
are made about offering a particular program or service to international students, but also
to learn about their views and perceptions on international students’ presence in their
campuses. In addition, they could offer insights on how their institutions attract such a
larger number of international students in this era of competitiveness in higher education
and what suggestions they have for other institutions that are interested in increasing
international student enrollment.
Third, it is often that existing literature (e.g., Hegarty, 2014) focuses on the economic
benefits of enrolling international students in American campuses. It is recommended
that researchers obtain direct feedback from administrators and faculty of the top 20
host institutions about the educational, cultural, and social benefits of having a large
international student population on campus. Such research findings could further
strengthen the case for why and how international students bring valuable contributions
to American higher education and why they should be supported at an institutional level.
Finally, it is suggested to conduct a similar study in 5–10 years and compare the
results with this study’s findings. The comparison will be helpful, especially in finding
out whether the 2017 immigration reforms have any long-term impact on international
student enrollment, countries of origin, as well as on the variety of services offered. As
indicated earlier in this paper, U.S. higher education leaders have already began observing
decreases in international student applications and enrollment in 2017 (Patel, 2017).
Continuous decreases in enrollment could limit the availability of resources generated
from international students’ fees at individual institutions, which might potentially affect
provision of services for international students.
Conclusions
In this study, we identified and described the types of support services offered to
international students at the top 20 U.S. universities that hosted the greatest number
of students in 2016. Six main categories of services offered at these universities were
identified and described to gain a more complete understanding of the types of support
programs that might be most instrumental in facilitating international students’ social
adjustment and academic success when studying in the United States. Overall, the
universities included in this study attempted to address language, writing, and academic
challenges with programs targeted specifically toward international students based on
challenges cited in the extant literature. Lee (2013) noted that international students
tended to underutilize specialized student support services. Therefore, orientation
programs and activities for international students should purposefully engage and
acclimate them with these programs. Determining whether or not this was actually
occurring was beyond the scope of this study.
As also noted in the research literature, financial challenges often are a substantial
source of international student dissatisfaction and a primary reason for their attrition
(Redden, 2014; Schulmann & Choudaha, 2014). Students stated that financial needs
included jobs, internship opportunities, scholarships, and tuition affordability. Given this,
it appears that financial needs are generally unserved by the leading U.S. institutions for
international student enrollment. In fact, some institutions clearly state on their websites
that “financial aid is not available to students who are not U.S. citizens or permanent
residents” and “therefore, international students must document that they have sufficient
funds to cover both the direct costs to the University and living expenses” (Penn State,
2015, p. 4). Offering some type of financial support in form of work/study and internship
opportunities might be something for institutions to consider. Such opportunities would
not only meet the financial needs of international students, but would also facilitate their
social adjustment and college engagement in host campuses.
References
Alvarez, E. H. (2016). Fostering open communication in a culturally diverse classroom.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(4).
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment
factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.
Araujo, A. A. (2011). Adjustment issues of international students enrolled in American
colleges and universities: A review of the literature. Higher Education Studies, 1(1), 2–8.
Bloomington, I. U. (2017). Office of International Services.
Board, E. A. (2014). Supporting international students on campus: 17 high impact
practices to ensure student success.
Brady, K. W., Duewer, N., & King, A. M. (2016). The effectiveness of a multimodal vowel-
targeted intervention in accent modification. Contemporary Issues in Communication
Science and Disorders, 43, 23–35.
Cetinkaya-Yildiz, E., Cakir, S. G., & Kondakci, Y. (2011). Psychological distress among
international students in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35,
534–539.
Chakraborty, R. (2017). A short note on accent–bias, social identity and ethnocentrism.
Advances in Language and Literacy Studies, 8(4), 82–100.
Chavajay, P. (2013). Perceived social support among international students at a U.S.
university. Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in Psychology, 112(2), 667–677.
Choi, T. (2006). Asian international students’ academic adjustment in a U. S. graduate
school and Stanton-Salazar’s framework. Pacific Asian Education, 18(2), 51–68.
Dao, K. T., Lee, D., & Chang, H. L. (2007). Acculturation level, perceived English fluency,
perceived social support level, and depression among Taiwanese international students.
College Student Journal, 41(2), 287–295.
Ebinger, S. E. (2011). International students’ perceptions of university assistance with their
social adjustment (Doctoral dissertation).
Fritz, M. V., Chin, D., & DeMarinis, V. (2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation, and
adjustment among international and North American students. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 244–259.
Glass, C. R., Gomez, E., & Urzua, A. (2014). Recreation, intercultural friendship, and
international students’ adaptation to college by region of origin. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 42, 104–117.
Harrybam, S. A., Guilfoyle, M. A., & Knight, S. (2012). Understanding the challenges
of accessing university support services: The perspectives of staff member and
international students. The International Journal of Learning, 18(6), 263–290.
Hegarty, N. (2014). Where we are now—The presence and importance of international
students to universities in the United States. Journal of International Studies, 4(3), 223–
235.
Hendrickson, B., Rosen, D., & Aune, R. K. (2010). An analysis of friendship networks,
social connectedness, homesickness, and satisfaction levels of international students.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Hung, H. L. & Hyun, E. (2010). East Asian international graduate students’ epistemological
experience in an American university. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
34, 340–353.
Hwang, E., Martirosyan, N. M., & Moore, G. W. (2016). A review of literature on adjustment
issues of international students. In Foster, K. B. C., editor, Global perspective and local
challenges surrounding international student mobility, pages 223–242, Hershey, PA. IGI
Global.
Jackson, M., Ray, S., & Bybell, D. (2013). International students in the U. S.: Social and
psychological adjustment. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 17–28.
Johnson, L. R. & Sandhu, D. S. (2007). Isolation, adjustment, and acculturation issues
of international students: Intervention strategies for counselors. In Singaravelu, H. &
Pope, M., editors, the United States, pages 13–37, Alexandria, VA. American Counseling
Association.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about
adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5),
430–445.
Khawaja, N. G. & Stallman, H. M. (2011). Understanding the coping strategies of
international students: A qualitative approach. Australian Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 21(2), 203–224.
Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising: Experiences of Korean
students. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(2), 171–193.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage, Oaks,
CA.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating
conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lee, J. J. (2013). Find on-campus support for international students. An ombudsman is just
one type of campus support often underutilized by international students.
Loudenback, T. (2016). 16). International students are now ‘subsidizing’ public American
universities to the tune of $9 billion a year. Business.
Martirosyan, N. M., Hwang, E., & Wanjohi, R. (2015). Impact of language proficiency on
academic performance of international students. Journal of International Students, 5(1),
72–86.
Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social support,
academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in the United
States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 137–157.
Mukminin, A. & McMahon, B. (2013). International graduate students’ cross-cultural
academic engagement: Stories of Indonesian doctoral students on American campus.
The Qualitative Report, 18(69), 1–19.
Patel, V. (2017). Prospective international students show new reluctance to study in the
U.S. Chronicle for Higher Education.
Perry, C. J. (2016). Comparing international and American students’ challenges: A
literature review. Journal of International Studies, 6(3), 712–721.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2014). Creating multicultural change on
campus. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
34(1), 28–36.
Journal, 40(4), 767–780.
Redden, E. (2014). Why they stay or leave. In new research being released at international
education conference, foreign students identify financial issues as their main sources of
dissatisfaction.
Rienties, B. & Nolan, E. M. (2014). Understanding friendship and learning networks of
international and host students using longitudinal social network analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 164–180.
Roberts, P., Boldy, D., & Dunworth, K. (2015). The views of international students regarding
university support services in Australia: A case study. The International Education
Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(3), 122–137.
Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning
environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher
Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89–102.
Rose-Redwood, C. A. (2017). Rethinking the politics of the international student
experience in the Age of Trump. Journal of International Studies, 7(3).
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, Oaks: CA.
Sato, T. & Hodge, S. R. (2009). Asian international doctoral students’ experiences at

two American universities: Assimilation, accommodation, and resistance. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 136–148.
Schulmann, P. & Choudaha, R. (2014). International student retention and success: A
comparative perspective.
Tardy, C. M. (2017). The challenge of genre in the academic writing classroom:
Implications for L2 writing teacher education. In Bitchener, J., Storch, N., & Wette, R.,
editors, Instructional approaches, pages 69–83, Abingdon. United Kingdom, Taylor &
Francis.
Tillman, M. J. (1990). Effective support services for international students. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 16(2), 87–98.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177.
Vasiloupolos, G. (2016). A critical review of international students’ adjustment research
from a Deleuzian perspective. Journal of International Studies, 6(1), 283–307.
adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 35, 139–162.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international students
and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher
Education, 76(2), 209–231.
Author biography
Nara M. Martirosyan is an Assistant Professor in the Developmental Education

Administration Doctoral Program at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, TX. Her
research focuses on best practices in developmental education, international students and
programs, student satisfaction, and program evaluation in higher education. She has held
various teaching and administrator positions in the United States and in Armenia.
Rebecca M. Bustamante is a Professor of Educational Leadership and Associate Dean of

Research, Inclusion, and Engagement at Sam Houston State University. Her scholarship
focuses on culturally responsive leadership practices, organizational culture and equity,
faculty support, international education, and the educational success of students
representing historically marginalized groups. She has held administrator and faculty
positions in the United States and various countries in Latin America.
D. Patrick Saxon is a Professor and Director of the Developmental Education Adminis-

tration Doctoral Program at Sam Houston State University. He has published extensively
and is coauthor of the book Attaining Excellence in Developmental Education. He is a
National Association for Developmental Education Executive Board member and a Coun-
cil for Learning Assistance and Developmental Education Associations Fellow.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 192–210
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.274
ojed.org/jis
Needs, Expectations, and Experiences of

International Students in Pathway
Program in the United States
Eman Elturkia , Yang Liua , Justyna Hjeltnessa and Kate Hellmanna
Abstract: This research assesses the first cohort of pathway students’ needs and their academic and
sociocultural experiences at a US university. A needs analysis survey, individual student interviews,
and a follow-up survey were used for data collection. Understanding lectures, completing
assignments, and building social relationships with domestics were among the challenges faced by
pathway students due to linguistic and cultural barriers. An additional unique challenge for this
particular population of international students centered around the fact that they tackle discipline-
related courses while still refining their English skills. Additional support services to help students in
pathways academically and socioculturally are crucial.
Keywords: academic challenges, graduate pathways, sociocultural factors, undergraduate

pathways
Introduction
The number of international students at U.S. universities has been steadily growing
in recent years. During the 2016–2017 academic year, it was estimated that the
total number of international students in the United States was 1,078,822 (Institute of
International Education [IIE], 2017). The presence of international students has benefited
the United States in various ways. International students have impacted universities and
colleges positively by contributing to research efforts, bringing diverse perspectives to the
classroom, and providing opportunities for domestic students to develop cross-cultural
competence, especially for those who have not had the opportunity to study abroad (IIE,
2017; Urban & Palmer, 2014). Beyond the academic impact, international students have
also contributed to the U.S. economy. Based on data compiled by the U.S. Department
of Commerce, the contribution of international students to the U.S. economy in 2016 was
$39.4 billion (IIE, 2017). They also provided over 450,000 jobs in the United States during
2017 (NAFSA: Association of International Educators [NAFSA], 2017).
a Washington State University.

Needs, Expectations, and Experiences of International Students 193
Although the United States has been an attractive destination for international
students, there is concern regarding a decrease in international student numbers. In fact,
many intensive English programs have experienced a considerable decline in enrollment
in recent years. According to a 2017 Open Doors report on intensive English-language
student data (IIE, 2017), a decline in enrollment from the following countries had been
observed during 2017 as compared to 2015: Brazil °56.2%, Saudi Arabia °45.2%, Vietnam
°35.6%, Kuwait °30%, Oman °30%, India °20.7%, China °16%, and South Korea °13.2%.
Some of the variables that have contributed to the drop in these numbers are cuts in
scholarship programs in some countries such as Saudi Arabia and Brazil, difficulties in
obtaining a U.S. visa, as well as the increase in language programs in students’ home
countries. Some observers predict that this decline may accelerate and result in significant
shifts in international student numbers and demographics due to the current political
climate and changes in policies after the 2016 U.S. presidential election (Altbach & de Wit,
2017).
Despite these concerns, the majority of U.S. universities are committed to the mission
of internationalization. In response to recent political events, some U.S. universities
have taken actions to support international students. A 2017 survey by IIE showed
that more than 50% of the surveyed universities indicated that they issued a statement
supporting international students, provided opportunities for students to discuss U.S.
social and political events, and/or offered counseling for students who were concerned
about the U.S. social and political climate. Internationalizing higher education has been
a continuing effort and a crucial element in the strategic planning of many universities.
Many institutions have systematically and actively sought ways to internationalize
their campuses. For instance, some institutions have taken concrete steps to realize
their mission of internationalization by working in partnership with a third party to
increase international student numbers. Washington State University (WSU), for example,
partnered with INTO, a private sector company that serves as a “bridge between students
seeking higher education opportunities and universities who seek to internationalize their
teaching, research and engagement around the world” (INTO University Partnerships,
2018). This move was part of the internationalization effort included in WSU’s “Drive
to 25” initiative (Lawson, 2016). WSU’s level of internationalization is currently at 7.1%,
which is low compared with other peer institutions standing at 18%–20% Washington State
University’s Office of International Programs & Office of the Provost, 2016). INTO was
launched in the United States in 2008 to provide a joint venture model to facilitate the
recruitment of international students. According to INTO University Partnerships (2018),
“In just eight years Oregon State University has grown international enrollments from 970
to 4,000, six times the U.S. average, while improving its ranking.” INTO WSU was fully
launched in Fall 2017 with a total number of 157 new students. Academic English programs
and pathway programs are offered. In the academic English program, students focus on
English as a second language (ESL) only, whereas in the pathway programs, students refine
their English language skills while taking academic courses in their majors concurrently
before becoming degree-seeking students after exiting the pathway programs. Pathway
programs are offered to both undergraduate and graduate students in different lengths
depending on students’ English language proficiency test scores at entry: comprehensive
194 Elturki et al.
undergraduate pathway (UP), two-semester UP, two-semester graduate pathway (GP), and
one-semester UP/GP. This paper reports on results from a longitudinal research project
that was initiated to assess the first cohort of pathway students’ needs and their academic
and sociocultural experiences at INTO WSU, and, accordingly, identifies ways to enhance
students’ experiences.
Literature Review
The growing population of international students has received increased attention in
recent years. Continuing efforts have been made to understand the challenges that
international students go through during their pursuits of academic degrees in English-
speaking countries. Researchers have reported that international students face both
academic and cultural obstacles (e.g., Caplan & Stevens, 2017; Gebhard, 2012; Lin &
Scherz, 2014; Perry, 2016). Academic challenges are related to the inability to function
effectively in classroom settings. Recurrent academic issues reported in the literature
were related to participation in classroom discussions, limited collaboration opportunities
with domestic peers, and lack of clarity in international students’ understanding of
degree requirements (Caplan & Stevens, 2017; Lin & Scherz, 2014; Perry, Weatherford, &
Lausch, 2016). International students also struggle with understanding lectures, and they
spend a substantial time and effort when reading academic texts and completing writing
assignments (Kuo, 2011; Lin & Scherz, 2014). Effective communication with professors
and domestic peers has also been reported as another challenge for international students.
Wu, Garza, and Guzman (2015) stated that international students struggle to communicate
effectively with faculty and classmates due to language barriers and a lack of proper
understanding of effective interactions in the foreign culture. Although most of the new
generations are tech-savvy, technology was described as another hurdle for international
students. Some of these technological issues were related to the navigation of student
online portals such as Blackboard, participating in virtual courses, completing online
assignments, and typing effectively and efficiently in English (Banjong, 2015; Perry, 2016).
Other studies have looked at international students’ adaption and adjustment to their
new environments. Studies show that international students experience cultural shock
owing to different cultural values and beliefs. As a result, they struggle with blending in
their new homes and in developing friendships with locals. Hommadova (2017) studied
the phases of adjustment of East Asian students in the United States and described that
the participants may have adapted to the new environment but still “failed to integrate
into the local culture, and chose to interact with co-ethnic or other international students”
(p. 189). Wu and colleagues (2015) explained that cultural challenges include adjusting
to “the different ways of thinking and doing in the US” (p. 1). In Wu et al.’s (2015)
study, the participants expressed that they felt discriminated against both in academic and
social settings and that their “American peers might not understand their backgrounds,
and they made conclusions for them” (p. 6). Interestingly, the participants in the same
study demonstrated willingness to disseminate their cultures and help their American
classmates learn about their backgrounds. Kusek (2015) also found that international
students have a strong connection with their host campus but a low degree of involvement
with the local community. Chen (2018) explained that the limited sense of belonging that
international students experience is a result of linguistic and cultural barriers.
Some studies have examined the strategies or coping mechanisms that international
students utilize to overcome some of the aforementioned academic and cultural obstacles.
For instance, some studies reported that recording lectures helped students review and
retain the information and that visiting places in the community, such as churches, helped
them enhance their speaking and socializing with native English speakers (Wu et al., 2015).
Learning about American sports, utilizing the campus gym, and exchanging food with
neighbors were other cultural strategies that international students sought to develop a
higher degree of integration into the new culture (Wu et al., 2015). Research also shows
that international students make use of campus resources, such as the writing center,
participate in school activities, seek language support, and join student organizations as
additional strategies (Wu et al., 2015; Zhou, Frey, & Bang, 2011).
It can be understood from the snapshot of the literature that international students
face numerous issues when studying in the United States. Language proficiency is
the main barrier at both the academic and social levels (Perry et al., 2016). Although
international students are able to obtain the required standardized test scores set by a
given institution, this does not necessarily mean that they will not encounter linguistic and
cultural issues when they join American universities. “Students are required to understand
classroom interaction and other communications no matter how good they were on the
[TOEFL/IELTS/GRE] tests” (Kuo, 2011, p. 41). The majority of the reviewed research looked
at the experiences of international students who were fully matriculated as undergraduate
and/or graduate students in institutions of higher education in the United States; however,
there is still a need for research on international students in pathway programs. This
research intends to add to this body of literature by shedding light on pathway systems in
which international students study both English language classes and discipline-related
courses. More specifically, this study reports on a longitudinal research project that was
initiated in Fall 2017 after the full launch of INTO WSU to (a) assess the first cohort
of undergraduate and graduate pathway students’ needs, academic and sociocultural
expectations, and perceptions of academic success, (b) monitor their academic and
sociocultural experiences in pathway programs, and (c) plan ways to enhance students’
experience based on the findings from this study. Specific research questions are:
What are the needs, academic and sociocultural expectations, and perceptions of
academic success of pathway students at entry? What are the sociocultural and learning
experiences of international undergraduate and graduate pathway students in U.S. higher
education?
Research Methods
Settings and Participants
WSU is a public research university in the United States. This study took place in pathway
programs at INTO WSU facilitated by the Intensive American Language Center (IALC). The
IALC, an accredited English language program founded in 1984, services the INTO WSU
partnership by providing academic English courses and pathways. This study focuses
196 Elturki et al.
on the first cohort of students who were admitted into the two-semester undergraduate
and graduate pathways and one-semester graduate pathways. The participants were
predominately from China and India. The majority of the UP students were business and
humanities majors while the GP students were largely from engineering and computer
science. Informed consent protocols were followed for the data collection process.

A descriptive research design was adopted to study “what” the academic and sociocultural
experiences of international students in pathway programs in an American institution of
higher education looked like. This research was also longitudinal in nature as data was
collected from a cohort of participants at different times over two academic semesters
using multiple instruments: a needs analysis survey at entry, individual student interviews
at the end of the first semester, and a follow-up survey after midterms week during the
second semester (Table 1). Survey completion and interview participation were voluntary.
Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were used to analyze the data. The following
subsections describe the research instruments and procedures.
Table 1. Data collection instruments and timeline.
Data collection instrument Timeline Date

Needs analysis survey Early Semester 1 Fall 2017
Interviews Late Semester 1 Fall 2017
Follow-up survey Mid Semester 2 Spring 2018
Needs Analysis Survey

A needs analysis survey was administered upon entry into the program. Input from needs
analysis is valuable to inform the planning, implementation, evaluation, and modification
of a program (Richards, 2017). The survey elicited information on the participants’
demographics including gender, age, nationality, program, and pathway type and track.
A second component of the survey used Likert scales to gather responses pertaining to
pathway students’ self-reported knowledge about their own second language (L2) and
academic competencies as well as their perceptions toward personal and sociocultural
aspects that could affect their learning experience. This survey used a 4-point Likert
scale (agree, somewhat agree, disagree, and somewhat disagree) without the inclusion of a
neutral option to avoid midpoints and get solid responses about the participants’ needs
and perceptions (Bertram, 2012). A final section in the survey included open-ended
questions to elicit more in-depth responses on the areas of English students would like to
improve at INTO WSU, concerns regarding studying academic courses, as well as out-of-
class self-reported ways to improve their English and academic performance. The survey
was developed using Qualtrics and sent via email to 75 students. Fifty-six students fully
completed the survey (undergraduate n = 18 and graduate n = 38) yielding a 75% response
rate. Frequency and percentage statistics, as well as thematic analyses, were used to
analyze the data. To differentiate between the undergraduate and graduate experiences, a
cross-tabulation of data was performed to treat the UP and GP participants as two groups
even though they were part of the same survey.
Student Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were carried out through the end of the participants’ first
semester between November and December 2017 with a total number of 40 students
(undergraduate n = 14 and graduate n = 26). Interviews consisted of two sets of questions;
one set included 10 questions related to academic aspects of students’ experiences during
their first semester in the pathway programs, and the other set covered 10 questions
concerning sociocultural aspects. The one-on-one interviews were recorded, transcribed,
and coded. The data was analyzed thematically following the steps proposed by Braun and
Clarke (2006). Emergent themes were grouped under broad a priori codes (e.g., academic
challenges, cultural challenges, etc.) and supported with verbatim quotations from the
participants to capture a clear picture of students’ experiences. The analysis also included
distinguishing between emergent themes pertaining to UP versus GP students.
Follow-Up Survey
Since this research is longitudinal in nature, a follow-up survey was designed using
Qualtrics and sent to the same cohort of undergraduate and graduate students in March
2018 after midterms week during their second semester. Fifty-one of the participants
(undergraduate n = 15 and graduate n = 38) responded to the follow-up survey yielding
a 64% response rate. The survey consisted of three sets of Likert scale questions and two
open-ended questions. The first set included questions regarding academic challenges,
whereas the second set covered questions related to sociocultural challenges using a
strongly agree–strongly disagree range. The third set asked students to indicate how often
(using very frequently, frequently, occasionally, rarely, never, or NA) they had, for example,
sought help from course instructors and advisors and utilized on-campus resources.
The open-ended questions gave a chance for participants to describe their classroom
experience at INTO WSU and share any specific challenges. The same procedures and
analyses conducted to analyze the needs analysis survey data were used for this survey.
Results
Findings from the Need Analysis Survey: Perceptions of Academic and
Sociocultural Competencies and Needs at Entry
This section reports on results from the needs analysis survey administered at entry.
Demographic data is provided in Table 2. Data was converted to percentages to draw
comparisons and contrasts between the UP and GP participants.
Overall, the 18 UP and 38 GP survey respondents seemed to feel positively about
their academic abilities and the sociocultural aspects of studying in a foreign country as
demonstrated by Figures 1 and 2. However, by glancing at the same figures, it can be clearly
seen that the GP respondents were more confident in their ratings than the UP students.
198 Elturki et al.
Table 2. Demographics of undergraduate pathway (UP) and graduate pathway (GP) student survey
respondents.
UP (n = 18) GP (n = 38)
Gender Male = 61% (n = 11) Male = 74% (n = 28)
Female = 39% (n = 7) Female = 26% (n = 10)
Age 18–19 = 61% (n = 11) 20s = 97% (n = 3)
20s = 4% (n = 7) 30s = 3% (n = 1)
Nationality China = 61% India = 50 %
South Korea = 11% China = 29%
Taiwan = 11% Turkey = 11%
Indonesia = 6% Taiwan = 7%
Malaysia = 6% Armenia = 3%
Thailand = 6%
Pathway track Business = 50% Computer science = 42%
Humanities and social sci- Mechanical engineering = 16%
ences = 17%
Computer science = 6% Architecture = 11%
Fine arts = 6% Electrical engineering = 8%
Journalism/communication Educational psychology = 8%
= 5.56% Agriculture = 5%
Math = 6% Apparel, textiles, merchandis-
Other = 11% ing and design = 2%
Interior design = 3%
Math (computational finance)
= 3%
Other = 3%
A large percentage of the GP respondents (81%–87%) agreed/somewhat agreed that they

had strong writing and reading skills, they were familiar with discipline-related vocabulary,
they had good research and study skills, and they were good at time management.
However, more than half of the GP respondents (53%) agreed/somewhat agreed that public
speaking made them extremely anxious. The UP students were relatively conservative
in their ratings. Half of the UP students (50%) somewhat disagreed with the statement
regarding possessing strong writing and reading skills.
Both of the UP and GP students felt positively about the sociocultural aspects of
studying in a foreign country; however, the GP students, once again, were more confident
in their ratings than the UP students (Figure 2). More than half of the UP respondents, on
the other hand, agreed/somewhat agreed (56%) that they were concerned about adjusting
to a new culture. Moreover, a significant percentage of the UP students (95%) and a
large proportion of GP (68%) agreed/somewhat agreed that they spent more time with
international students rather than domestic students.
The needs analysis survey also included open-ended questions in which students
elaborated on areas of English that they wanted to improve at INTO WSU, concerns about
studying academic courses in English, and their thoughts of ways to improve their English
Figure 1. Students’ self-reported knowledge about their own L2 and academic competence at entry.
Figure 2. Students’ perceptions towards personal and sociocultural aspects of their learning
experience at entry.
and academic performance outside of class. The following summarizes the findings from
the thematic analysis of data:
• Both the UP and GP participants had similar needs related to language and academic
skills. Reading and writing followed by speaking, grammar, listening, and vocabulary
were the recurrent aspects of language that UP students hoped to improve at INTO
WSU. Interestingly, the GP student population expressed a wider range of needs,
including improving their reading, research skills, writing, vocabulary, as well as
presentation and discussion skills. Several GP students explained that they wanted
200 Elturki et al.
to improve their speaking skills. Some focused on accent while others emphasized
confidence.
• Understanding lectures due to their listening abilities or limited academic
vocabulary was a concern for the UP population. Some students named specific
courses and explained that they lacked background knowledge in those subjects.
Others further explained that reading and writing essays took them a long time,
and they were constantly worried about meeting deadlines. While many of the
GP students listed similar concerns related to understanding lectures and the lack
of background knowledge in some of the selected courses, some specified that
they found an enormous difference between the U.S. education style and their
countries’ and that they were worried about meeting the U.S. education standards.
Understanding and using technical terminology and being able to meet degree
requirements were some of the other concerns of GP students. A few of the GP
students said that their only concern was meeting assignment deadlines.
• Conversation opportunities and specifically interacting with Americans were the
most recurring themes regarding UP and GP participants’ thoughts about ways to
improve their English and academic performance outside of class. Some of the GP
participants proposed offering activities, clubs, or groups that they could join to
improve their speaking abilities. Reading books, novels, articles, and research papers
was also mentioned by the GP participants as means to help them improve their
English.
Findings from Individual Interviews: Academic and Sociocultural

Experiences at End of the First Semester
Forty students of the 56 who completed the needs analysis survey participated in the
individual interviews (UP: n = 14, GP: n = 26). The individual interviews showed that
UP and GP participants had similar academic and sociocultural experiences. Nonetheless,
there were some aspects that were unique to each population.
Academic Challenges
Understanding lectures. The majority of the UP and GP participants reported that they
had difficulties understanding lectures. Some explained that it was challenging for them to
follow what instructors said due to limited vocabulary and listening comprehension skills.
Some of the UP interviewees stated that it had been difficult for them to catch information
due to the speaking speed of some faculty, whereas the majority of GP students attributed
the difficulty in understanding to the faculty accents. Another challenge was related to
the complexity of the learning process in L2. That is, content learning tasks require higher
order thinking (Zohar & Dori, 2003). Students need to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize
the information they receive to create new knowledge. This complex process is further
challenging given language demands such as understanding discipline-specific words and
phrases. In one of the interviewee’s words:
It is hard to understand what the professor is saying. I have to translate

the information or the knowledge of my major into mine. That’s kind
of challenging because we are not used to the English lecture. (GP,

Computer Science)
Challenging assignments/content. Another recurrent theme was related to specific classes

that participants reported being difficult, very demanding, or beyond their academic
level. Complaints ranged from challenging or unclear assignments to lack of prerequisite
knowledge to be able to succeed in particular courses. The overwhelming majority of UP
named a specific course that they felt they were unsuccessful in. For example, one student
explained that:
Some of the assignments will be just confusing because it is hard for me

to find the information. I always spend a lot of time in the beginning,
maybe sometimes even I can’t understand anything. (UP, Business)
Other UP participants had similar comments about the difficulty of assignments. They
explained that, for example, some of the written assignments required writing a minimum
of three pages, but they described the prompts as difficult to understand with no clear
guidelines. The GP participants seemed to find some courses beyond their current
academic level. To explain, they believed that they lacked the prerequisite content
knowledge that would help them navigate new knowledge. A GP student commented that:
My XXX class. . . I think I am taking a harder one than what I took in

my undergraduate. I think it is not suitable for me because it’s hard to
understand because my English is not very well as American students. It
is hard and I can’t understand. (GP, Mechanical Engineering)
Linguistic barriers. Linguistic challenges ranged from limited vocabulary to lack of

effective speaking and writing skills. Particular writing struggles for the UP participants
were lack of schema to write about specific topics and difficulties synthesizing information
and organizing their essays. For example, one student explained:
[My] big challenge is the writing part. . . the essay part. It is very hard.
Sometimes I don’t know the topic background. So sometimes it is hard
for me to write a perfect essay. (UP, Business)
Another UP student majoring in humanities explained that although he attended an

international school in his home country in which English was the medium of instruction
and attended a year of high school in Los Angeles, “language and vocabulary are still the
biggest challenge” for him. The GP students found writing research papers challenging.
One GP interviewee majoring in architecture commented that “the most challenge is
writing a research paper. I didn’t do a research paper before. I think that’s the first hardest
thing to deal with in the US” Additionally, speaking with clarity and confidence seemed to
be a concern to both GP and UP participants mainly due to accent-related issues.
Lack of personalized interaction with faculty. This theme particularly emerged in the UP
interviewees’ data when they were asked if they received language support from faculty.
Some general education classes in freshmen year tend to be large. UP students felt lost to
be in such a setting. One student explained:
202 Elturki et al.
We have 300 students in the class, so they [faculty] don’t give much
support. We have to study by ourselves maybe just go through the
dictionary. (UP, Communication)
Another student added “faculty professor class is huge and you can’t talk with them at that
time” (UP, Humanities).
Sociocultural Challenges
Students seemed to have positive sociocultural experiences at WSU and in the small
college town of Pullman. They shared that they felt safe and found the community to be
friendly. One student mentioned:
Teachers and people are very nice here. They just can’t understand your
language. . . maybe if it’s not very good, they would talk slowly and explain
to you the words because I heard that the people in the big cities are not
as kind as in here. (UP, Communication)
Nonetheless, a theme that emerged from the UP and GP data was difficulty in making
friends and interacting with Americans. The majority of the interviewees stated that they
found it difficult to make friends with domestic students because of language barriers
and cultural differences. Some added that they do get to interact with Americans in the
classroom, dormitory, and other places such as the gym and dining halls, but they said
that they interact more with international students or individuals from their own country
or culture. The following quotes capture how students felt about this matter:
Making friends with Americans is hard. First because of my language. I

can’t really understand, so maybe they are talking, and I don’t know how
to chat with them. And the other thing is that we have one day three
hours in the class, and maybe after class we all leave, and we can’t real
make friends with them. I think it is a little bit difficult. (UP, Business)
I’m trying. During the class time, we have like group work and we talk to
each other. We just talk with them, but we don’t really become friends. I
think it is a challenge. (UP, Humanities)
It is hard. Because we have different thinking styles and speaking styles.

Our speaking is slow and not enough words for a conversation. (GP,
Computer Science)
Language and Academic Support

Some of the interview questions asked students about the language and academic
support they received. The following summarizes the interviewees’ experiences in their
university courses and English classes.
Support from university courses. The majority of the interviewees explained that
they did not receive language support from faculty teaching university courses. They
specifically mentioned that they did not receive feedback on written assignments; they
were just given a score. However, many of the GP participants felt that their major courses
helped them improve their communicative skills due to collaboration and teamwork. They
also mentioned that preparing for and giving presentations as well as reading academic
articles helped improve their speaking and vocabulary. In terms of academic help, both
UP and GP students stated that they either spoke with their instructors after class (not
in class), visited faculty occasionally during office hours, or sent emails. They said that
when they sought assistance, instructors responded and provided help. One UP student
majoring in business commented on this by saying, “If you try to ask, the teacher will help.
Just don’t be shy. I was shy in the beginning, and the teacher is very nice. Don’t be scared
just go and ask her.” Another GP student from computational finance described faculty as
helpful “because when I tell them I am a pathway student, they were very grateful to help
us.”
Support from language courses. Both UP and GP participants found their English classes
helpful. The UP students explained that their English class helped them improve their
writing, listening comprehension, and understanding assignments from their university
courses:
My XXX class is definitely helping because before I took that class, I didn’t
know anything about writing an essay, and all other classes require to
write an essay. As a student, I didn’t know anything, but my teacher helps
me and teach me a lot of skills like the Chicago style. She helped me a lot.
(UP, Communication)
That class helped me with the writing part. I feel like I can write a lot
better than when I was in China, and also helped with my listening ability
like when the teacher talks in the class. I think the class helps me catch
the real college class. I think it is very helpful. I think studio hours help us
with homework that is confusing. I think studio hours are very helpful.
(UP, Business)
It helps me how to write an essay and get better, and you know I studied
high school in Las Vegas, but the essays in high school and college are
different. So when I went to WSU, the first time I wrote was very bad, but
now she teaches me how to write and my writing is good. (UP, Business)
The GP students reported similar positive experiences about their English classes. They
explained that they helped them with their research skills, grammar, and reading skills.
We learn summary and critique. This is very helpful. Every time I have a
conference with XXX, and she has a great patience to help me to reword
my paper or other assignments. That’s very great! Really helpful. (GP,
Computer Science)
I had no idea how to write a research paper before I came to the US. XXX’s
class helped me a lot how to write a research paper, and helped me to find
sources, and how to have a well-organized research paper. And one of
my weaknesses in writing I always forget to explain some sources in my
204 Elturki et al.
research paper or in the article, so I think it is helpful. (GP, Mechanical

Engineering)
I learned a lot of skills about writing or reading. . . especially reading.

My reading skills improved during the semester. (GP, Computational
Finance)
It’s helpful in many parts. We need to write a research paper, and she
taught us about the format, grammar, and organization. Not only the
writing, we read articles, and learn how to think when reading an article.
(GP, Electrical Engineering)
Recommendations for Improvement

The interview also included questions about students’ own view of a supportive
learning environment and recommendations to the university to improve, which are
summarized as follows:
Smaller classes. Putting pathway students in smaller classes was a common theme in
the UP students’ data. In one of the UP student’s words:
I prefer some small lectures not like 300 students, maybe 30 or 40

students, that size of class. Then that would be good because at least the
professor can meet and can know our faces. And 300 is. . . . the first time
I went into that classroom, I was freaking out. At least not in pathway I
mean. (UP, Communication)
Mindful selection of courses. As pointed out earlier, some pathway students found some
courses difficult. Participants recommended selecting courses that would be appropriate
for this population. One student elaborated:
English class in here [in the academic English program], they know we
are international students, but in my XXX or other classes, they don’t
know there are pathway students in there. And they talk too fast. Maybe
choose which courses the pathway students to go to better than to tell the
teacher to be aware there are pathway students in their classes because
the class is for the students and most of them are American students.
So they can’t because there are some pathway students to talk easier
or something. I think we have to fit in with the class, but maybe if
some of the classes are too hard, they are not appropriate in the first
year. . . maybe like the [XXX course] we can put it in the second year after
we practice English more. Choose not too hard courses for first year
pathway students. (UP, Business)
Ability to self-select courses. This was specifically common in the GP students’ data. One
student explained that “The only thing is about the selection of courses should be given
to the students even though they are pathway students, so that they are not wasting their
credits” (GP, Computer Science).
Tutoring opportunities. Some of the participants suggested providing more tutoring

opportunities for pathway students to help them with content.
Clear guidelines for assignments. Several participants explained that they wished that
their major professors provided clear guidelines for assignments and shared sample work.
Out-of-class activities to interact with domestic students. Both UP and GP students
recommended offering more activities to interact with domestic students and practice
their speaking.
Other. Other suggestions were related to getting more student advisors, explaining U.S.
academic expectations clearly, offering sessions or classes on study skills and academic
strategies, and recruiting former or senior students to help with specific courses.
Findings from the Follow-Up Survey: Academic and Sociocultural

Challenges Experienced during Midterms in Semester Two
This section reports on results from the follow-up survey, which was administered to track
the academic and sociocultural experiences of pathway students after midterms during
their second semester. Fifty-one students from the 56 that completed the needs analysis
survey at entry responded to this survey (UP: n = 15, GP: n = 36). Students were asked
to report academic challenges as well as sociocultural issues by indicating their level of
agreement with the statements listed in Figures 3 and 4. Survey results demonstrated
that more than half of the UP either agreed/strongly agreed (54%–67%) with the listed
academic challenges (Figure 3). Paraphrasing and using proper citation rules to avoid
plagiarism, participating in classroom discussions, performing well on assignments, and
understanding lectures to instructors’ accent or speed seemed to be the most challenging
for the UP population. The GP participants’ agreed/strongly agreed ratings ranged from
44% to 66%. Some of their challenges were paraphrasing and using proper citation rules to
avoid plagiarism as well as difficulties in understanding lectures due to limited vocabulary.
Common sociocultural challenges (Figure 4) that the UP participants agreed/strongly
agreed with included getting access to ethnic food (74%), understanding U.S. medical
insurance (67%), making friendships with Americans (67%), learning how to interact with
Americans properly (60%), and adjusting to the American culture (60%). For the GP
participants, challenges included keeping up with finances (69%), maintaining contact
with family in their home country (69%), getting access to ethnic food (67%), and being
understood when speaking in English (59%).
Another question in the follow-up survey asked participants to indicate how frequently
they sought help from faculty and advisors and utilized services such as the tutoring center.
Based on the results presented in Figure 5, a small percentage indicated that they very
frequently or frequently made use of the services provided or sought help from faculty and
advisors.
Discussion and Implications

This study attempted to explore the academic and sociocultural experiences of the
first cohort of international students in UP and GP programs. Results from this study
are consistent with the literature on the challenges faced by international students in
206 Elturki et al.
Figure 3. UP and GP academic challenges in their second semester.
Figure 4. UP and GP sociocultural challenges in their second semester.
U.S. higher education (e.g., Caplan & Stevens, 2017; Perry et al., 2016). Concerning
the first research question, students had high expectations regarding their academic
and sociocultural experiences in their host country as was demonstrated by the needs
analysis survey. Since students were at the beginning of their academic journey in a
new country, they were in the “honeymoon” stage filled with feelings of excitement and
euphoria (Hommadova, 2017). In the same survey, the UP students indicated a range
of linguistic and academic needs related mostly to improving their language skills. In
addition to refining their linguistic abilities, the GP students had a wider range of academic
needs including developing their research, presentation, and discussion skills. Recurrent
Figure 5. Frequency of support services sought by UP and GP students.
concerns at entry were understanding lectures and meeting assignment deadlines. In

terms of ways to improve their English, students proposed offering more opportunities to
interact with Americans. To sum up the initial results, students expressed different needs
and felt positive about their perceived abilities. Nonetheless, as noted by Brown (1995),
student needs are not fixed. They fluctuate and shift as a result of various personal and
institutional variables.
The second research question attempted to capture pathway students’ sociocultural
and learning experiences towards the end of their first and second semesters. Various
challenges faced by UP and GP students came forth in the individual interviews and follow-
up survey results. Some of the major challenges, which are in alignment with the literature
(e.g., Caplan & Stevens, 2017; Kuo, 2011; Lin & Scherz, 2014), were related to understanding
lectures and completing assignments successfully.
In addition to these common obstacles, pathway students face additional challenges
that are unique to this population. While international students complete their English
language programs and then matriculate into their degree programs, international
students in the pathway system refine their English and take university courses
simultaneously. Pathway programs provide students with the opportunity to develop
necessary linguistic skills to be successful in academia. However, students in such
programs are immersed in a regular university classroom from the beginning of the
semester while working on enhancing their linguistic skills. This results in unique needs
and challenges for this population of international students. As the data suggests, UP
and GP students at the beginning of their semester were under the impression that they
were ready to undertake the challenge of studying in the United States. As the semester
progressed, they began to realize the difficulty of listening to lectures or completing an
assignment in English. Moreover, balancing between the refinement of linguistic skills and
academic courses can be overwhelming. In such settings, students need to keep up with
their language courses and make progress in their university courses simultaneously. It is
particularly challenging for the GP students as they need to receive a grade point average of
208 Elturki et al.
3.0 in order to progress to the next pathway semester or move out of pathway. Additionally,
selection of courses is another challenge for this population. UP and GP courses are
preplanned for this population. Students might be unable to change their courses if they
find them difficult or unrelated to their majors.
In terms of students’ sociocultural experiences, results showed that there is a need
to offer more interactive opportunities to bridge the cultural gap between domestic and
international students. A few of the students mentioned that they enjoyed classroom
teamwork because that was the only time they interacted with Americans. More
opportunities to interact with American students outside of class may not only boost
students’ confidence, but also improve their linguistic and social skills.
Since the adaptation of the pathway system, ongoing efforts are being made to improve
the academic and sociocultural experiences of students at INTO WSU:
• Curriculum adaptation: The pathway curriculum has been constantly revisited and
updated since the launching of the pathway programs. Revisions are based on
input from students, course instructors, and program evaluations. One mandated
assignment that was added and should be noted here is “syllabus analysis” to
identify major assignments in university classes. This assignment not only help
students understand assignment requirements, but also provides their English
language faculty with necessary information about pathway students’ academic
courses so that they can offer support accordingly. New courses for UP and GP
students such as “Academic English for Engineering” and “English for Business”
have been developed to improve students’ communication skills and vocabulary in
those contexts. Additionally, a “Study Skills for University Success” course has been
designed to help students be more successful in their university courses.
• Studio hours: Since students in the two-semester UP take one language course
per semester, more individual interaction and support from faculty in the academic
English program was ensured through studio hours. During the studio hours (5 hr),
the teacher provides assistance with, for example, understanding assignments from
academic courses taken concurrently, using library and Internet resources to locate
credible sources, editing written work, and improving individual pronunciation
difficulties.
• Learning Resource Center: This tutoring center has been established to help
students with both language and content. It offers ESL tutoring as well as customized
tutoring for pathway students, connects them with already existing university
support services, and works to build out new services needed based on the ever-
changing demographics of students.
• Advising: Student advisors take care of students’ academic and personal wellbeing.
They monitor students’ academic progress, identify struggling students, and advise
them on different types of issues including academics, culture, time management,
and organization. More advisors are to be hired to help support and advise students.
• Student experience activities: A student experience team was established to involve
pathway students in social events and connect them with the community.
Conclusion
To conclude, the trend of offering pathway programs at U.S. universities has been
increasing over the past decade. Such programs provide international students with
a soft landing spot at institutions of higher education where they receive a high-level
of support services while they refine their academic and language skills in preparation
for university study. After successful completion of pathway programs, students are
mainstreamed into their degree programs. This descriptive research study aimed to assess
international undergraduate and graduate students’ needs and specifically their academic
and sociocultural experiences in pathway programs during their first two semesters at
INTO WSU. Findings from the present study can help inform other U.S. universities that
have already adopted or are considering the establishment of pathway programs. This
study focused on students’ own perceived needs and experiences. Future research can also
assess factors that correlate with academic success such as pathway students’ entry grade
point averages and English language proficiency scores. Other future research may explore
pathway programs from the perspectives of both faculty for English language learners and
regular faculty.
References
Altbach, P. G. & Wit, H. (2017). Trump and the coming revolution in higher education
internationalization. International Higher Education, 89, 3–5.
Banjong, D. N. (2015). International students’ enhanced academic performance: Effects of
campus resources. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 132–142.
Bertram, D. (2012). Likert scales . . . are the meaning of life.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to
program development. Heinle & Heinle, New York, NY.
Caplan, N. A. & Stevens, S. G. (2017). “Step out of the cycle”: Needs, challenges,
and successes of international undergraduates at a US university. English for Specific.
Purposes, 46, 15–28.
Chen, J. (2018). Exploring Chinese international students’ sense of belonging in North
American postsecondary institutions.
Gebhard, J. G. (2012). International students’ adjustment problems and behaviors. Journal
of International Students, 2(2), 158–164.
Hommadova, A. (2017). Phases of cultural adjustment of East Asian students. Journal of
International and Advanced Japanese Studies, 9, 171–192.
Kuo, Y. (2011). Language challenges faced by international graduate students in the United
States. Journal of International Students, 1(2), 38–42.
Kusek, W. A. (2015). Evaluating the struggles with international students and local
community participation. Journal of International Students, 5(2), 121–131.
Lawson, C. (2016). New initiative will enhance WSU diversity, global reach.
Lin, S. Y. & Scherz, S. D. (2014). Challenges facing Asian international graduate students
in the US: Pedagogical considerations in higher education. Journal of International
210 Elturki et al.
Students, 4(1), 16–33.

Partnerships, I. N. T. O. U. (2018). About INTO.
Perry, C. J. (2016). Comparing international and American students’ challenges: A
literature review. Journal of International Students, 6(3), 712–721.
Perry, C. J., Weatherford, J., & Lausch, D. (2016). Academic concerns. pages 192–197.
Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
18(4), 305–324.
Wu, H. P., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and
adjustment to college. Education Research International, pages 1–9.
Zhou, Y., Frey, C., & Bang, H. (2011). Understanding of international graduate students’
academic adaptation to a U. S. Graduate School. International Education, 41(1), 76–84.
Zohar, A. & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are
they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181.
Author biography
Eman Elturki is the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment and faculty at INTO
WSU. Her research interests include exploring second language development using corpus
linguistics as a methodology, English language teaching and learning, and international
student success.
Yang Liu is IALC faculty at INTO WSU. Her research focuses on second language
acquisition in adults and culture influence on English language learning.
Justyna Hjeltness is IALC faculty at INTO WSU. Her current research interests include
integration of international students into a university setting.
Kate Hellmann is the Academic Director at INTO WSU. Her research focuses on using
sociocultural theory as a lens for international student success in higher education.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 211–224
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.273
ojed.org/jis
Studying in the United States: Language

Learning Challenges, Strategies, and
Support Services
Debra M Wolfa and Linh Phunga
Abstract: A case study was conducted to explore the experiences of Chinese nurses when completing
a graduate nursing degree taught in English (as a second language) in the United States over a 1-year
period. The study explored language, academic, and social challenges perceived by the students,
strategies used to overcome challenges, and academic support services designed to help students
succeed in their studies. Survey data were collected at three different points in time, and three
interviews were conducted with each participant. The study identified participants’ difficulty with
academic writing, mixed experiences with speaking, moderate-to-high levels of strategy use, and
appreciation of the support services offered. The study offered implications for improvements in
pedagogies and programming for international students.
Keywords: language learning, study abroad, language challenges
Introduction
Higher education today is changing with increased opportunities for students to travel
to other countries to obtain higher degrees. In the United States alone, the number of
international students in 2016–2017 reached the all-time high of nearly 1.1 million, 32.5%
of whom were Chinese students (Institute of International Education, 2017). International
students in the US are defined as those who need immigration documents from a U.S.
institution in order to apply for a visa to enter the country. Studying abroad exposes
students to global experiences that fulfill learning objectives and opportunities that differ
from what they have access to in their country. In the United States and Australia, one
particular type of program growing yearly is bachelor’s and master’s degrees in nursing
for Chinese students. With the increase of international students from China, there
are challenges academic institutions must be prepared to address. Wang, Andre, and
Greenwood (2015) completed a literature review that identified a range of challenges
for Chinese international students (including nursing students). Key challenges focused
a Chatham University.
212 Wolf and Phung
on English language proficiency, different learning styles, and cultural differences. The
authors called for further research into lived experiences of Chinese nursing students
studying abroad.
To address this need for further research, a case study was conducted to explore
language-related experiences of Chinese bachelor’s-prepared nurses studying in the
United States over a 1-year period. More specifically, the study aimed to identify
the language challenges experienced by the nurses, strategies used to overcome the
challenges, and the usefulness of English as second language (ESL) and academic
support services provided. The study collected both quantitative and qualitative data to
triangulate the findings and gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ experiences.
The findings from the study offered implications for improvements in pedagogies and
programming for international students.
Literature Review
International students studying in a second language (L2) and in a new environment have
been found to face numerous challenges, including linguistic, academic, and sociocultural
challenges (Gu, 2011; Huang, 2012; Kuo, 2011; Lee, 2010; Leong, 2015; Li, Wang, Liu, Xu,
& Cui, 2018; Parris-Kidd & Barnett, 2011; Wang, Andre, & Greenwood, 2015). Rosenthal,
Russell, and Thomson (2008) found that, among 979 international students surveyed,
24% of Asian students reported having difficulties in written English and 22% in spoken
English as well as a high level of stress. Li et al. (2018) reported frequent references to
challenges related to English proficiency, connections with locals, course readiness, and
time management among 13 East Asian international students studying in the US. A study
by Kuo (2011) explored language challenges faced by international graduate students in
the United States. Among the 716 students invited to complete an online survey, 152
responded. The authors identified that standardized test scores did not accurately predict
academic success nor alert faculty of language challenges of studying abroad. The two
main challenges reported were listening comprehension and oral communication outside
the classroom. Participants in the study also reported difficulties with terminologies in
their reading materials. The author attributed the difficulties to the lack of development
of language skills needed to study at an American institution. In a qualitative study with
11 international students, seven of whom were Chinese, Leong (2015) also found English
language proficiency as the primary barrier to students’ academic success.
A recent study by Mitchell, Del Fabbro, and Shaw (2017) explored language learning
needs of Chinese international nursing students and identified that students felt isolated,
studying took longer, stress impacted their ability to communicate, and they needed to
develop their proficiency in speaking English. The authors presented two major themes
from their study: Chinese nursing students had difficulty expressing themselves and
“finding their place” (a sense of belonging) when studying abroad. The latter theme is
similar to what Horne, Lin, Anson, and Jacobson (2018) reported in their study comparing
international undergraduate and U.S. undergraduate students. While there have been
many studies investigating international students’ numerous challenges, Wang et al.
(2015) acknowledged a need for “further research into the lived learning experience of
Chinese nursing students” studying abroad (p. 609). The present study examined the
Studying in the United States 213
experiences of this particular population in the US with a focus on language-related

challenges.
Although challenges have been found to be common, strategy use has also been
identified as important for academic success. The L2 learning literature in particular has
emphasized the importance of learners’ active and creative participation in the learning
process through individualized language learning strategies (Dornyei, 2010; Ozgur &
Griffiths, 2013). Oxford (1990) defined language learning strategies as “specific actions
taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p. 8). Frequent strategy use
indicates a high level of self-regulation and effort, which plays an important role in L2
learning success (Dornyei, 2010; Ozgur & Griffiths, 2013). Language learning strategies
have been categorized in various ways. One of the most popular taxonomies is Oxford’s
(1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). This taxonomy places different
strategies into six categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective,
and social. The taxonomy has been used extensively to investigate the relationship of
strategy use and a language learner’s degree of success.
Green and Oxford (1995) used the SILL to study language learning strategies used
by language learners in Puerto Rico and found greater use of strategies among more
successful learners. The learners’ strategy use was also qualitatively different from
less successful learners’. Griffiths (2003) used the SILL to investigate the relationship
between strategy use and course level in a private language school in New Zealand.
The author discovered that higher level students frequently used more language learning
strategies. In a recent literature review, Griffiths and Oxford (2014) concluded that while
the relationship between strategy use and proficiency is complicated, there is a significant
positive correlation between strategy use and successful language learning. However,
strategy use among students who attend a degree taught in English in another country
has not been explored.
This case study addresses the gaps in research mentioned above by exploring the
challenges that a cohort of Chinese nursing students faced while studying abroad in their
L2, the strategies they used to overcome the challenges, and the usefulness of the support
services provided to them. The study collected data at three different points in time during
the participants’ program of study. In addition, the study is unique in that the students who
participated in the study arrived in the US as a cohort group versus individual international
students integrated into an existing program with domestic students.
Methods
Participants
Participants were eight bachelor’s-prepared Chinese nurses enrolled in a three-term on-
ground Master’s of Science in Nursing Education program in a small private mid-Atlantic
university. There were two male and six female participants, who had several years’
experience working as a nurse in different specialty areas in their home country. At the
time of admission into the program, their International English Language Testing Scores
(IELTS) ranged from 5.5 to 7.0, indicating a proficiency level between intermediate to low-
214 Wolf and Phung
advanced. The students studied as a cohort in an on-ground program, for the traditional
master’s program in nursing at the university was fully online for students from the US.
Data
The study collected both quantitative and qualitative data over a period of one year.
Participants completed one electronic survey and participated in an interview at the end
of each term (fall, spring, and summer). The two sources of data were used to triangulate
the findings to answer the research questions. The study was descriptive and exploratory
in nature with the aim to generate greater insights into a particular cohort of students.
Materials
Materials used to collect the data in the study included one electronic survey and an
interview using a predefined script. The survey was a combination of two surveys. The first
one was a 22 item self-developed survey focused on exploring challenges and academic
and support services available to participants. Participants responded to each statement
by selecting a number from 1 (not challenging or not helpful) to 5 (extremely challenging
or extremely helpful). The second survey was the SILL with 55 items and six subcategories,
each of which had six to 14 individual statements (Oxford, 1990). Participants were to
respond to each statement by selecting 1 (never true of me) to 5 (always true of me).
The SILL survey has a reliability factor (Cronbach alpha) of .93–.98 (Oxford & Burry, 1993;
Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). For each interview, an interview script was used to ensure
consistency, but follow-up questions were also asked. Table 1 shows the pre-determined
interview questions.
Table 1. Interview questions.
Please state the code number you were assigned.

What has been your experience so far with studying in English?
What class activities are easy for you? What are difficult for you? Why?
What skill (reading, writing, listening, or speaking) do you find easy? What do you find difficult?
Why?
Do you find the readings in your graduate courses easy or difficult? Why?
Do you find the writing assignments easy or difficult? Why?
Do you find giving a presentation easy or difficult? Why?
How about using language outside the classroom? What do you use English/Chinese? What are
the challenges?
What are your strategies to overcome the challenges?
Procedure
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university. During the first
week of the program, the Dean of the School of Health Sciences sent an email to encourage
the students to participate in the study. All of the students (n = 8) signed a consent form
to volunteer as participants. After consenting, each participant picked a code from 1 to
8 to be used when submitting surveys and during the interviews. The interviewer asked
nine predetermined questions (Table 1) and used follow-up questions to clarify meaning
or to encourage participants for further elaboration of their thoughts. The interviews were
audio recorded and transcribed for data analysis.
Analysis
The quantitative data from the survey were entered into Microsoft Excel 2010 for analysis.
Due to one participant only responding to the survey at the end of the fall and spring terms
(using the same score for all items on the SILL), this participant’s data were removed. A
mean score for each category in the SILL was calculated for each participant as well as for
all seven participants to determine whether participants demonstrated low use (means
around 1.0–2.0), medium use (means around 3.0), or high use of strategies (means around
4.0–5.0). With items related to the challenges of various academic tasks and the perceived
usefulness of support services, mean scores of seven participants were calculated for the
fall, spring, and summer. These means were examined together with the qualitative data
to better understand the participants’ experiences as related to the demands of studying a
degree in English as a second language abroad.
The interviews were transcribed by a professional transcriber and reviewed by a
research assistant. The transcripts were then entered into NVivo 11 for data analysis.
During data analysis, the following parent codes were assigned to the participants’
content: difficulty (+, °, or mixed); language skills and knowledge (speaking, writing,
writing, vocabulary, and grammar); sources of difficulty; sources of ease; and strategies.
The child codes under sources of difficulty, sources of ease, and strategies emerged from
the data, which meant the researcher did not have predetermined codes for them. The
second researcher conducted the coding herself, but went through all the codes with the
first researcher to resolve any differences in opinions. The results section will report the
findings from the quantitative analysis and the themes that emerged from the qualitative
analysis to answer the research questions regarding the challenges that the participants
faced, the strategies that they used to overcome the challenges, and the helpfulness of
various support services and programs at the university.
The Researchers
The first researcher of the study was the Coordinator of the International Nursing Program
where the participants enrolled within the U.S. university. She oversaw the admission
and advancement of the participants throughout the program as well as the curriculum
and instruction. The second researcher was the Director of the English Language
Program, which offered support services to the participants. Both researchers worked
closely with the students throughout the 12-month period, and their knowledge of the
participants, the curriculum and services offered, and the university context contributed
to the interpretation of the data. To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the study,
216 Wolf and Phung
the two researchers consistently cross-checked data coding and analysis, and discussed
the findings.
Results
A total of eight Chinese nursing students were invited to participate in the study. The size
was limited because the total number of students accepted into the fall cohort that year
was eight. A response rate of 100% was obtained, with all eight agreeing to participate. The
findings are reported according to the questions investigated in the study and the major
themes that emerged from both the quantitative and qualitative data.
Challenges
Table 2 displays the “challenge” mean scores that participants gave to various academic
tasks and some other aspects of their experiences when studying abroad.
Table 2. Perceived Challenges (N = 7)
Statement Fall Spring Summer
Reading materials from graduate courses 2.85 2.00 1.83

Understanding lectures 3.00 2.14 2.33
Taking notes 2.14 2.00 2.17
Participating in classroom discussion 2.71 1.86 2.33
Working in groups with other students 1.71 1.86 2.33
Giving a presentation 2.43 1.86 2.33
Writing research papers 3.86 2.57 3.17
Writing short papers 2.86 2.00 2.33
Finding sources for my papers 2.14 1.86 2.17
Communicating with professors outside the 2.86 1.86 2.00
classroom
Managing my time 3.00 2.00 2.33
Managing my emotions 2.43 2.14 2.00
Making friends 2.86 1.86 2.16
Note. Scale: 1 (not at all challenging), 2 (a little challenging), 3 (challenging), 4 (very challenging), or 5 (extremely
challenging).
As noted in Table 2, in the fall term (the participants’ first semester studying abroad),
participants found many of the tasks challenging with the means for those tasks
approaching 3.00. Especially, they rated writing research papers as very challenging (M =
3.86). In the spring semester, participants rated all of the tasks as only a little challenging,
indicating their increased confidence with the tasks. In the summer term, all of the tasks
remained “little challenging” except for writing research papers, which was still rated as
challenging at the conclusion of the program (M = 3.17).
Qualitative findings confirmed that writing was challenging for the participants as the
majority of the references to writing in the interviews were associated with difficulty.
Participants attributed difficulty to their unfamiliarity with academic writing, especially
the American Psychological Association format, and the rubrics or “what the professor
needed” with each assignment. They also acknowledged the demands of writing in a
second language in the academic style in terms of (1) voice (e.g., the restriction on the
use of I, my, and we); (2) organization; (3) accuracy, logic, and clarity of sentences;
and (4) mechanics. Despite the progress they made in writing after three semesters,
some participants felt they still made mistakes that were “deep in [their] heart” and still
conducted their “language thinking” in their mother tongue. One participant described
the experience with writing assignments in the last interview as:
I think they are still difficult for me because some language thinking is
different. I can make it grammatically right, but I can’t write it like an
American, like a native, because the native doesn’t writing things like we
do. I just can make it less error, that I can do, but I cannot make it like
perfect.
Based on the qualitative analysis of the interviews, another language area that participants
largely rated as difficult was listening, both in and outside the classroom. Participants
said they had difficulty understanding native speakers, professors in class, and webinars
or TED talks because of speed, difficult vocabulary, different accents, and a different
“logical system.” Participants mentioned one reason for the difficulty in listening was that
they mostly listened to textbook recordings and had little opportunity to listen to native
speakers while learning English in China. The lack of understanding or improvement in
listening abilities sometimes resulted in the feeling of embarrassment and frustration.
Perceptions of speaking were quite mixed, partly because participants described their
experience with speaking in various situations and academic tasks, including classroom
discussions, academic presentations, conversations with native speakers, and interacting
with preceptors during their clinical experience. Regarding giving a presentation, some
participants found it difficult because of little prior experience, anxiety, and the demand
of the task itself (i.e., having to memorize and present difficult content to an audience
with words that were difficult to pronounce). However, some found giving a presentation
not very difficult because they had experience giving presentations as nurse trainers.
Participants mentioned having several opportunities to practice presentations as part
of their course requirements within the Master’s of Science in Nursing program. In
addition, some participants really enjoyed sharing their opinions, expertise, and even
emotions to their classmates and professors, especially when the topics were “in their
zone.” One participant described finishing a presentation as completing a great mission
as they could make others “understand” and “admire” their accomplishments. Apparently,
there were various emotions associated with giving a presentation, including anxiety,
satisfaction, and pride. In addition to presentations, conversations with preceptors
were all viewed positively since they gave them opportunities to “chat” and use English
professionally. However, “daily communication” was described as mostly difficult because
of, according to the participants, the lack of understanding on their part, the difficulty
218 Wolf and Phung
in expressing meaning, and cultural differences. These difficulties resulted in a range of

negative emotions, such as stress, embarrassment, shame, loss of confidence, and even
“suffering.” One participant recounted an incident with the local Social Security office
when lack of understanding caused the individual and the classmates to feel ashamed and
embarrassed:
I remember last time we went to apply our social secure security, the
police in the SSN office, when we entered the office he speak a long
sentence in English that we just can understand I, you (laugh) in a
sentence. But he is police and he had a gun and we were too ashamed
to ask to say it again. And we look at each other very embarrassed and it
looks like we are not doing something good (laugh).
Different from writing, listening, and speaking, reading was perceived as not so difficult
because participants had more exposure to reading in China and they could use a
dictionary to look up new words. In addition, they felt reading became easier at the end of
the program because of the amount of academic and technical vocabularies acquired after
three semesters of academic course work.
In general, both quantitative and qualitative data suggest specific challenges that a
group of Chinese nurses face studying for an advanced degree in the United States in
English. The qualitative data offer insights into their struggles with writing, listening, and
speaking and the emotions associated with them. The Discussion section will connect
these findings with current literature on experiences of international students in the US.
Strategies
Mean scores reflecting strategy use were analyzed based on the six subsections of the SILL
(Table 3).
Table 3. Overall mean of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning subsections (N = 7).
Strategy Fall Spring Summer Overall mean

Memory strategies 2.94 3.73 3.39 3.33
Cognitive strategies 3.39 3.83 3.50 3.58
Compensatory strategies 3.60 3.86 3.55 3.68
Metacognitive strategies 3.33 3.81 3.71 3.59
Affective strategies 3.29 3.95 3.45 3.57
Social strategies 3.48 3.69 4.14 3.70
Note. Scale: 1 (Never true of me), 2 (Usually not true of me), 3 (Somewhat true of me), 4 (Usually true of me), 5
(Always true of me).
The data demonstrate that participants used language learning strategies at moderate
to high levels with the means for all subsections of the SILL ranging from 2.99 to 4.14.
Interestingly, they reported a higher level of strategy use in the spring semester with most
of the means approximating 4.0. Noticeably, participants reported the highest level of use
in the category of social strategies in the last semester (M = 4.14).
The qualitative data illustrate some interesting themes around language learning
strategy use. When asked what strategies participants used to overcome the challenges,
several mentioned a wide variety of strategies, the majority of which were coded “learning
strategies” as participants mentioned their efforts to listen more, read more, practice more,
use dictionaries, and find more opportunities to talk with native speakers to learn from
them. Considering the difficulty that participants reported when interacting with native
speakers, it was encouraging that they reported using compensatory strategies, such as
asking others to slow down, asking for repetition, checking understanding, guessing, and
paraphrasing. While these strategies certainly helped, having to use them also indicated
to the participants that they were struggling and did not always result in communicative
success. Consistent with a result from the quantitative analysis, participants reported
repeated use of social strategies, including asking peers, tutors, and professors for support.
What was interesting was that participants consistently reported consulting other fellow
students in their cohort when they did not understand an assignment or when they made
mistakes or had difficulty communicating with others outside the classroom. Peer support
seemed quite strong. Also encouraging was their use of tutors at the university for further
support. Participants also highly appreciated the kindness from professors, who slowed
down, encouraged them, and helped them in their study.
Usefulness of Academic and Support Services

Table 5 shows the means of the “helpfulness” scores that participants gave to academic and
support services offered to them during the study period. The description of the services
is included in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Description of services.
ELP workshops 14 three-hour workshops on academic writing and

speaking
ELP tutoring Weekly tutoring to assist with writing assignments
ELP conversation hours Optional program offered through ELP to partner stu-
dents with English speaking individuals for a 1:1 conver-
sation in the fall and spring terms
Tutoring from PACE Free 1:1 service offered by PACE to assist students with
any academic learning and writing needs
Workshops from PACE Group workshops offered to all students through the year,
focus on writing and learning needs
Workshops from Health Services Workshops offered through the Office of Student Health
to help students with cultural adjustments
Advising from professors Advising, guidance, and direction as needed from
assigned faculty from each course as well as an academic
advisor.
Note. ELP = English Language Program; PACE = Programs for Academic Access, Confidence, and Excellence.
220 Wolf and Phung
Table 5. Helpfulness scores (N = 7).
Service Fall Spring Summer Overall mean

ELP workshops 2.86 3.43 4.33 3.50
ELP tutoring 3.00 4.00 4.83 3.90
ELP conversation hours 2.43 3.29 4.17 3.25
Tutoring from PACE 4.00 3.43 3.16 3.55
Workshops from PACE 3.71 3.43 3.50 3.50
Workshops from library 3.29 3.29 3.33 3.30
Workshops from health services 3.71 3.71 3.83 3.75
Advising from professors 4.00 3.86 3.33 3.75
Note. ELP = English Language Program; PACE = Programs for Academic Access, Confidence and Excellence.
Scale: 1 (not at all helpful), 2 (a little helpful), 3 (helpful), 4 (very helpful), or 5 (extremely helpful).
Throughout the three semesters, participants generally found all of the services helpful
to very helpful. In the fall term, participants highly appreciated tutoring from Programs for
Academic Access, Confidence, and Excellence (PACE), workshops from PACE, workshops
from Health Services, and advice from professors. In their last semester, although some
services were no longer offered by the ELP to the participants in that semester, participants
found English Language Program (ELP) workshops, ELP tutoring, and ELP conversation
hours very and extremely helpful.
When asked about the usefulness of services provided in the three interviews,
participants mentioned the usefulness of a conversation group from a Chinese church
they went to, conversation hours offered by the ELP, conversation partners they were
paired with by the ELP, activities at the university that they participated in, and even the
three interviews with the second researcher. While participants clearly appreciated these
opportunities to talk and connect with other people, they recommended more for future
students. They also asked for more everyday English or “life words” and more “supporting
of life” from the university. Overall, participants left the last interview with positive feelings
of success and personal growth. Based on the participants, the researchers confirmed
their success in completing the program and advancing their career back in China. Talking
about the whole experience, one participant stated:
This year was exciting. I learned a lot from this year. Actually not only
from my nursing area, but also to live in a different culture, eat different
food. Also I traveled a lot in the US, and I have been to many places,
the West, the East. I learned a lot from travel: different transportation,
different culture, different language. I think it has been an unforgettable
experience. I will always remember this year–all that I have experienced.
Others also used such words as perfect, unforgettable, and comfortable to describe their
experiences.
Summary of Findings
In summary, the main findings from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses
identified a general decline in challenges over the three semesters, but writing and
listening remained difficult to most participants. The difficulties stemmed from the
linguistic demands of the writing and listening tasks and the participants’ unfamiliarity
with the academic writing style. Reading was found the least challenging because of their
prior exposure to reading and the time they could spend reading independently using
various resources. Perceptions of speaking were mixed since speaking tasks and situations
varied. Interestingly, speaking was a source of quite a few mixed emotions: anxiety, shame,
embarrassment, and also pride, satisfaction, and joy. Participants reported frequent use of
different strategies and mentioned conscious efforts to improve their language skills and
succeed in their graduate course work. However, the use of specific strategies varied from
semester to semester based on the demands of the courses taken at the time. In addition,
there was increased use of social strategies as participants continued to seek support from
peers, tutors, and professors. Finally, participants found the support services, especially
tutoring services and programs that offered opportunities for social interactions, helpful,
but recommended more speaking opportunities and “life support” for future students.
Discussion
Consistent with previous research (Kuo, 2011; Leong, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2017; Wang et
al., 2015), this study suggests that challenges confronting international students studying
abroad in their second language are multifaceted. They occur both inside and outside
the classroom. The finding regarding the difficulty with academic writing was not a
surprise considering the high linguistic demands of graduate-level writing tasks and the
lack of preparation in academic writing among international students despite having
an acceptable standardized test language score (Kuo, 2011). This finding highlights
the importance of providing formalized writing instruction and support to international
students who are still acquiring a new language, learning to write academically, and only
starting to socialize into their disciplinary discourse. Apart from the support from an ESL
program, faculty teaching content courses could make academic content comprehensible
through sheltered instruction techniques, which are commonly used in the K–12 setting
in the mainstream classes including English language learners (Echevarria, Vogt, &
Short, 2016; He & Hutson, 2018). Taking challenges faced by international students
into consideration, they could also present their expectations and grading rubrics more
explicitly to international students. In addition, the difficulty with listening may be due to
the demands of processing new content in real time and the participants’ unfamiliarity
with listening to and using English beyond doing exercises presented in textbooks, a
common scenario in countries like China, where teaching and assessment focus mostly
on vocabulary, grammar, and reading (Nunan, 2003). This difficulty needs to be taken into
account by those instructing and interacting with international students.
Regarding oral communication, similar to previous research, difficulties with oral
communication affected participants’ sense of confidence and self-esteem and resulted
in negative emotions and even stress (Kuo, 2011; Li et al., 2018; Mitchell et al., 2017). These
222 Wolf and Phung
negative emotions may lead to a decreased sense of social satisfaction and belonging,
and overall student engagement (Horne et al., 2018). On the other hand, communicative
success in academic and everyday situations promoted a sense of competence and
induced positive emotions of pride, satisfaction, and joy. In language learning, the
enjoyment derived from successfully communicating with others itself has been linked to
higher engagement in learning activities and motivation to seek similar activities, which
are important factors in L2 success (Egbert, 2003; Phung, 2017). This finding suggests
institutions enrolling international students need to organize opportunities that allow
the students to interact with others in a supportive environment where interlocutors
are willing to negotiate meaning to achieve mutual understanding and communicative
success. This means faculty, staff, and local students should, among other things, consider
slowing down when lecturing and speaking and be patient and allow international
students more time to formulate their thoughts before speaking.
Regarding strategy use, the study suggested that graduate nursing students in this
cohort were active learners as reflected in the frequent use of metacognitive strategies (or
learning strategies) and cognitive strategies noted in the survey results and interviews.
These findings indicated participants’ intentional and intense effort in managing their
language development and academic coursework. In addition, individual learning efforts
were balanced with one’s utilization of social strategies as they frequently sought support
from peers, tutors, and professors. Together with the usefulness of support services offered
at the university, this level of strategy use may explain the decline in the challenges they
faced, the progress participants reported during the last interview, and the overall positive
experience with their program. The study suggests that, even with numerous challenges
and less than advanced English proficiency level, appropriate accommodations and
services as well as student efforts can result in student success and satisfaction in graduate
studies abroad. In addition, the support from peers reported in the study suggests that
studying abroad in a cohort has its own advantages because students have access to a
supportive network of peers in their studies and in their daily life. This finding is consistent
with Jessup-Anger and Aragones (2013), who identified that students of the same cohort
interacted frequently for companionship and learning needs, which positively influenced
their overall experiences. Contrary to the argument that international students need to be
integrated with local students to benefit from their study abroad, cohort-based programs
like the one in this study may work well especially when international students will return
to work in their home country.
Conclusion
Nursing programs in the US and Australia have been attracting international students,
including Chinese nurses to obtain a higher nursing degree outside of their home country.
As universities prepare to accept international students, they must understand students’
challenges, coping strategies, and experiences and provide services that will help them
succeed. The findings from this study suggest that international students face numerous
challenges, but can also be quite active in their learning through flexible strategy use.
ESL and academic support services provided by the university; considerations by faculty;
the kindness and patience of professors, staff, and local students; and a supportive peer
network are likely important in promoting international students’ positive experience and
success. In addition, studying abroad in a cohort versus integrating into existing programs
presents its own advantage as a model of international education.
The researchers would like to acknowledge some limitations of the study, including
a small sample size and the variation in the quantitative data, which limit the
generalizability of the findings to other contexts. Despite the limitations, the study offers
insights that may be useful for higher education institutions in supporting international
student success in general and developing programs to international nursing students
from China in particular.
References
Dornyei, Z. (2010). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Routledge, New York, NY.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2016). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP Model. Pearson, Boston, MA.
Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 87(4), 499–518.
Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367–383.
Griffiths, C. & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning
strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1–10.
Gu, Q. (2011). An emotional journal of change: The case of Chinese students in UK higher
education. In Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M., editors, Researching Chinese learners, pages 212–232,
New York, NY. Palgrave Macmillan.
He, Y. & Hutson, B. (2018). Exploring and leveraging Chinese international students’
strengths for success. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 87–108.
Horne, S., Lin, S., Anson, M., & Jacobson, W. (2018). Engagement, satisfaction, and
belonging of international undergraduates at U.S. research universities. Journal of
Huang, Y. (2012). Transitioning challenges faced by Chinese graduate students. Adult
Learning, 23(3), 138–147.
J., J.-A. & Aragones, A. (2013). Students’ peer interactions within a cohort and in host
countries during a short-term study abroad. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 50(1), 21–36.
Kuo, Y. (2011). Language challenges faced by international graduate students in the United
States. Journal of International Students, 1(2), 38–42.
Lee, J. J. (2010). International students’ experiences and attitudes at a US host institution:
Self-reports and future recommendations. Journal of Research in International
Education, 9, 66–84.
Leong, P. (2015). Coming to America: Assessing patterns of acculturation, friendship
formation, and the academic experiences of international students at a U.S. college.
224 Wolf and Phung
Li, J., Wang, Y., X., L., Xu, Y., & T, C. (2018). Academic adaptation among international
students from East Asian countries: A consensual qualitative research. Journal of
Mitchell, C., Fabbro, L. D., & Shaw, J. (2017). The acculturation, language and learning
experiences of international nursing students: Implications for nursing education.
Nurse Education Today.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and
practices in Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. House,
New York, NY: Newbury.
Oxford, R. L. & Burry, J. A. (1993). Evolution, norming, and psychometric testing of Oxford’s
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta, GA.
Oxford, R. L. & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning.
(SILL). System, 23, 153–175.
Ozgur, B. & Griffiths, C. (2013). Second language motivation. Procedia –. Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1109–1114.
Parris-Kidd, H. & Barnett, J. (2011). Cultures of learning and student participation: Chinese
learners in a multicultural English class in Australia. In Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M., editors,
Researching Chinese learners, pages 169–187, New York, NY. Palgrave Macmillan.
Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US
university context. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 751–766.
Rosenthal, D. A., Russell, J., & Thomson, G. D. (2008). The health and wellbeing of
international students at an Australian university. Higher Education, 55, 51–67.
Wang, C., Andre, K., & Greenwood, K. (2015). Chinese students studying at Australian
universities with specific reference to nursing students: A narrative literature review.
Nurse Education Today, 35, 609–619.
Author biography
Debra M Wolf is a Professor of Nursing in the School of Health Sciences at Chatham
University. Her major research interests lie in the area of academic literacies, international
study abroad, healthcare informatics.
Linh Phung is the Director, English Language and Pathways Programs within the Office of
International Affairs at Chatham University. Her major research interests lie in the areas of
Second Language Acquisition, task-based language teaching, and international education.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 225–241
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.267
ojed.org/jis
The Effects of Linguistic and

Demographic Features of Chinese
International Students on Placement
Test Levels in Higher Education: Logistic
Regression
Eunjeong Parka
Abstract: Higher education institutions in the United States provide placement essay tests to
ensure international students’ readiness for college courses. The high-stakes nature of placement
tests makes educators and researchers seek significant components of differentiating levels of
placement tests. This study investigated the prediction of two levels (i.e., low vs. intermediate) of
411 placement test essays written by Chinese international students and examined the influence
of linguistic and demographic features on placement test levels through logistic regression. The
results showed that the type-token ratio, tokens, college type, and graduate status were significant
indicators to differentiate students’ placement test essays. However, several demographic features
were not statistically significant. The results may shed light on improving writing skills of Chinese
international students who scored intermediate or low in the placement tests.
Keywords: logistic regression, placement essay test, type–token ratio
Introduction
An influx of international students has been steadily increasing in colleges and universities
across the United States. International students are “[second language] students born,
raised, and educated in another country who come temporarily to the U.S. on a foreign
student visa for a short-term educational or training program” (Ferris, 2009, p. 4;
Ferris & Hedgcock, 2013). According to the Open Doors 2017 report, the number of
international students studying in the United States grew by 3.4 % in 2016–2017 (Institute
of International Education [IIE], 2017). International students constituted approximately
5.3% of students enrolled in the total U.S. higher education student population in
Corresponding author: park.1752@osu.edu

226 Park
the year 2016–2017. Additionally, international students are considered crucial for the
economic and social impact on the U.S. International students have contributed more
than $35 billion to the economic vigor of American higher education institutions and
their communities in 2016-2017. According to the 2017 Open Door report (IIE, 2017),
1,078,822 Chinese international students were enrolled in higher education in the US,
making China the top place of origin of international students. International students
have also contributed to scientific and technical research and related diverse and dynamic
perspectives in U.S. classrooms, benefiting American classmates for global careers and
business relationships (IIE, 2017).
Most international students enrolled in U.S. universities and colleges must take
placement essay tests to ensure that they are ready for introductory college courses.
Placement tests have the purpose of assigning students a specific level of language
ability within the curriculum (Brown, 1994; Harmer, 2007; Hughs, 2003). According to
the Educational Testing Service (2017), placement tests carry several benefits, such as
the incorporation of students’ learning to their corresponding proficiency level and the
reduction of student and faculty frustration and student retention. Placement test results
are also used to assign international students to the appropriate levels of composition
classes to meet the academic expectations of institutions. Due to the high-stakes nature of
placement testing, concerns about academic performance have generated a considerable
interest in the field of educational testing over the years. Furthermore, many linguists,
educators, and assessment-related researchers (L. Cheng & Fox, 2017; Read, 2015) have
delved into significant components of differentiating levels of placement tests.
The factors of placement test results often influence second language (L2) teaching,
such as what to teach in the classroom. Therefore, it is essential to examine what the
factors are so that international students receive proper instruction based on their needs.
Placement test results can vary due to different factors, such as demographic and linguistic
variables (L. Cheng & Fox, 2017; Read, 2000, 2015). Particularly, in this paper, gender,
academic status, disciplinary variation, tokens (i.e., the number of words), and type-token
ratio (i.e., type-to-token ratio) are examined based on the review of the literature.
Literature Review
Main demographic and linguistic factors were reviewed to better understand the present
study.
Demographic Factor 1: Gender Differences in Tests

Many studies (Bible, Simkin, & Kuechler, 2008; Bolger & Kellaghan, 1990; Bridgeman,
1991; Bridgeman & Lewis, 1994) have reported that females tend to do better in essay-type
tests than males. Bolger and Kellaghan (1990) investigated the impact of gender on three
subjects, namely, English, Irish, and mathematics. The study found that female students
performed better on the essay examinations than male students. Bridgeman (1991) and
Bridgeman and Lewis’s (1994) studies yielded similar results for the Advanced Placement
examinations in American and European history, English language, and biology. Female
students outperformed male students on the essay examinations in European history and
The Effects of Linguistic and Demographic Features 227
English language. More studies have also found a positive relation between gender of
females and performance on essay examinations (e.g., Becker & Johnston, 1999; Du Plessis
& Du Plessis, 2009; Harris & Kerby, 1997; Lumsden & Scott, 1995; Williams, Waldauer,
& Duggal, 1992). Oppong’s (2013) study also showed that females perform better than
males in an essay-type test and explained females’ out-performance on essay tests. First,
females perhaps do well in novel situations than males. Second, females generally use the
English language more often in their communication than males, leading to their ability
to perform better in examinations requiring the use of the English language in writing the
responses.
While many studies found that females outperform males on essay examinations, other
studies found no difference. Lumsden and Scott’s (1995) study implied that they did not
find a significant gender effect on the economics essay examination of the Chartered
Association of Certified Accountants. Holley and Jenkins (1993) did not find a significant
gender effect on essay questions. Since gender differences in essay tests are on-going
issues, we need to examine if gender differentiates levels of placement test essays, as well
as considering other predictors.
Demographic Factor 2: Academic Status as an Indicator of Writing

Proficiency
Huang (2010) indicated that international graduate and undergraduate students generally
have difficulty in writing essays. Therefore, it is crucial for educators to acknowledge the
academic language needs of international graduate and undergraduate students across
disciplines. Grover (2013) expressed a concern that there is a need for improving writing
skills at the graduate level seemingly due to a lack of preparation of incoming graduate
students. A study by Singleton-Jackson, Lumsden, and Newsom (2009) suggested that
there is no significant difference in the overall writing skill of undergraduate and incoming
graduate students. The findings revealed that the graduate students did not score
significantly higher than undergraduate students. However, little research is available on
academic status (undergraduate vs. graduate) as an indicator of different levels of writing
proficiency. Therefore, this study will contribute to filling a gap in research.
Demographic Factor 3: Disciplinary Variation

Neumann’s (2001) conceptual review of quality of university teaching denoted that soft
disciplines (e.g., arts) tend to emphasize critical thinking and analysis and synthesis
of course contents, whereas, hard disciplines (e.g., science and engineering) tend to
emphasize skills in dealing with numerical data with little writing required. Neumann
(2001) indicated that soft disciplines receive higher ratings of academic outcomes than
hard disciplines. North’s (2005a, 2005b) studies revealed disciplinary differences exist
related to differing conceptions of the nature of knowledge in a variety of textual features.
North’s (2005b) study showed that students from an arts background accomplished
significantly higher grades of essay writing than those from a science background.
The findings of North’s (2005b) study suggest that this disciplinary variation presents
knowledge by framing the discussion as a matter of interpretation rather than fact.
228 Park
Furthermore, North (2005a, 2005b) claimed that students’ writing is influenced by their
disciplinary background. Hyland (2012) also made a contrast between arts and sciences
groups by examining distribution and frequency of lexical bundle use. Hyland (2012)
stated that argument patterns in the two disciplinary domains (i.e., arts and sciences)
are distinctive. The group of business studies and applied linguistics tended to connect
aspects of argument in their writing, while the other group of biology and electrical
engineering tended to avoid authorial presence by pointing to graphs and findings. As
implications from prior literature show (Hyland, 2012; Neumann, 2001; North, 2005a,
2005b), disciplinary variations may represent different levels of language proficiency in
placement essay writing.
Linguistic Factor 4: Type–Token Ratio

Vocabulary is an essential component in language learning. Doró (2007) maintained
that vocabulary is closely connected to judgment in determining the quality of writing.
Singleton (2001) also pointed out that lexical development and vocabulary growth occur
in various contexts, particularly in case of a second language. In the field of language
research, type–token ratios (TTRs) have been extensively used as an index of lexical
diversity (Richards, 1986). Crossley and McNamara (2012) regarded word length, text
length, and lexical diversity as “linguistic sophistication” (p. 117) and maintained that text
length can be an indicator of differentiating high-proficiency essays from low-proficiency
essays.
Read (2000) explained how students with a high TTR use a variety of different words in
their writing. The TTR indicates the number of unique words (i.e., type) in comparison to
the total number of words (i.e., token) that the writers use with “lexical density.” Therefore,
lexical density can be measured by the simple TTR. The TTR is a calculation of the number
of types divided by the number of tokens in a text with the TTR formula (number of types
/ number of tokens £ 100; Lindqvist, Gudmundson, & Bardel, 2013). Types indicate the
unique words in a text, and tokens are subsequent appearances of that word type in the text
(Harrington, 2018). The phrase “the big cat in the big hat” has five types (the, big, cat, in,
hat) out of seven total tokens. The TTR is a measure of lexical diversity originally developed
for measuring first language (L1) vocabulary development. It is an index of lexical diversity
and not a measure of absolute size, but it is reasonable to assume that users who produce
a wider variety of words—that is, have a higher TTR—will also have larger vocabularies. In
practice, however, the measure has been shown to be relatively insensitive to differences
in proficiency levels.
The TTR is a helpful measure of lexical variety within a text. Harrington (2018) regarded
TTR as an index of lexical diversity, assuming that users who produce a wider variety
of words are likely to have a higher TTR. Thomas (2005) explicated that the range falls
between a zero (infinite repetition of a single type) and one (the complete non-repetition
found in a concordance). The more types there are in comparison to the number of
tokens, the greater there is a lexical variety. In other words, a high TTR signifies a large
amount of lexical density, while a low TTR implies relatively little lexical density. Read
(2000) suggested that students with the lower TTR tend to use a limited number of words
repetitively in their writing. Douglas (2009) also claimed that students with the lower
lexically varied essays have less success than the ones with more lexically varied essays.
Linguistic Factor 5: Tokens

Tokens refer to the total number of words. A token is a figure that the word count
function of a word-processing program gives, and a type is each repeated item once only
(Hunston, 2002). Scholars and linguists have been interested in whether text length can
be an effective indicator of writing proficiency. Several studies (Ferris, 1994; Reid, 1986,
1990) have implied that higher-rated essays contain more words. Baba’s (2009) study
investigated the impact of the lexical proficiency on English language learners’ summary
writing in English by controlling for the impact of linguistic abilities in English and
Japanese (the first language). The participant’s English lexical proficiency, English reading
comprehension, English proficiency, knowledge of Japanese vocabulary, and writing
proficiency in Japanese, and the length of summaries were assessed in the study. Multiple
regression analysis of the data showed that reading comprehension and text length were
the two strongest predictors of summary writing performance. Crossley and McNamara’s
(2012) study also examined the importance of lexical variables in writing proficiency.
The findings regarding linguistic sophistication raised a theoretical implication that
lexical variables (e.g., lexical diversity, word frequency, word meaningfulness, and word
familiarity) account for 29% of the variance in the regression analysis. This supports
Engber’s (1995) claim that lexical knowledge is an important aspect of L2 writing
proficiency and indicates the importance of lexical richness and variety in assessing L2
writing skills. Crossley, Kyle, Allen, Guo, and McNamara’s (2014) study uncovered that
indices of text length, lexical sophistication, and syntactic complexity indicate an ability
to quickly and easily produce complex text.
From the literature review, the TTR and tokens can be a useful indicator of lexical
variations and learners’ language proficiency. Because tokens indicate text length and the
TTR represents lexical sophistication (Crossley et al., 2014; Read, 2000), it is necessary to
investigate if the TTR and tokens predict the students’ levels of language proficiency in the
corpus data of placement test essays.
Based on reviews of prior research, this study attempts to examine the influence of
gender, academic status, college type, TTR, and tokens on placement test levels (i.e., low
vs. intermediate) through logistic regression. The research questions are as the following:
1. Does gender predict the placement test levels (low vs. intermediate)?
2. Do TTR and tokens predict the placement test levels (low vs. intermediate)
3. Do gender, academic status, college type, tokens, and TTR predict the placement
test levels (low vs. intermediate)?
Research Method
In this study, we examined participants, data sources (i.e., placement test essays),
measures (i.e., TTR, tokens, demographic predictors, and placement test levels as the
outcome variable), and effect size for data collection and analysis.
230 Park
Participants
In 2015-2016, 6,153 international students were enrolled at a midwestern university (“2016
Student Enrollment Report”, n. d.). Among the international students, approximately
3,690 (60%) who took placement essay tests agreed to the consent forms. Compositions
were only included if there were at least 50 representatives of any given demographic
category—that is, gender, country, the college type, and the academic status (“Corpus of
Learner English,” 2016). Compositions were only included with students’ consent and
if they did not contain any identifying information about the author. Exclusion criteria
involved something personally identifiable (e.g., names and family background), non-
consenters’ products, and the compositions that did not meet the criteria above. With
these thresholds, the 411 compositions in the Corpus of Learner English (CoLE) included
all Chinese students (235 males, 176 females), of which 224 were undergraduate and
187 were graduate students from the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (39.4%), Engineering
(24.1%), or Business (36.5%). One hundred and forty-one undergraduates received the low
level, 83 undergraduates received the intermediate level, 87 graduate students received
the low level, and 100 graduate students received the intermediate level. Risks to students
were minimized by de-identifying the data in each essay before it was uploaded into the
corpus. The corpus is further subdivided into three proficiency levels (low, medium, and
high), based on a range of placement test essay scores.
Instrumentation
Placement Test Essays
Placement test essays will be used for examining the most frequently used lexical bundles
among the sampled population. The written placement test consists of two parts—a
summary and a response to an assigned source. Students read and respond to a
source—scientific research articles for graduate students and articles of common sense or
about daily living for undergraduate students. Basically, the placement test essays measure
how well the students summarize and critically think about the source. Then, their essays
are assessed with the three criteria: intellectual property, the content of the source, and
language. The English as a second language (ESL) composition coordinator explained the
three criteria for evaluating the placement test essays. Intellectual property is measured
by whether the students acknowledge a source by citing it in an academically appropriate
way; if the content is coherent; if the language is relevant to syntactic structures; and word
choice. In addition, several learning skills are reflected in the test: responding to a writing
prompt; exhibiting basic critical thinking in response to the text excerpt; organizing ideas
in texts; supporting the ideas with relevant readings, personal experiences, and other
sources of information; and demonstrating competence in the correct usage of vocabulary,
grammar, and mechanics. Based on these criteria, the essays are rated by at least two
experienced ESL instructors who are specifically trained on the placement test. They are
graded with three rating scores—basic, intermediate, and Q (Qualify).
Measures
TTR
The TTR is a measure of vocabulary variation within a written text or a person’s speech.
The TTRs of the 411 compositions in the CoLE are calculated and interpreted. The TTR
ranged from 33.09 to 67.11 (M = 47.24, SD = 5.98), as seen in Table 1. The TTR is shown to
be a helpful measure of lexical variety within a text. It can be used to monitor changes in
children and adults with vocabulary difficulties.
Tokens
Tokens (i.e., the number of words) are added to see if the length of an essay matters in the
study. Tokens refer to the total number of words. The tokens ranged from 130 to 792 (M =
425.14, SD = 111.83) as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of continuous predictors
Variable M SD Min Max Skewness SE of Kurtosis SE of

Skew- Kurtosis
ness
Tokens 425.14 111.83 130 792 0.32 0.12 0.50 0.24
Type–token 47.24 5.98 33.09 67.11 0.29 0.12 0.33 0.24
ratio
Demographic Predictors
The predictors in this study include gender, academic status, and college type. Among the
411 students, 176 (42.8%) were females and 235 (57.2%) were males. 247 students (60.1%)
were in the age range of 18–21, and 164 (39.9%) were over 22. Two hundred and twenty-
four (54.5%) were undergraduate students, 187 (45.5%) were graduate students. Among
the 411 students who responded, 162 (39.4%) reported being in the arts and sciences, 99
(24.1%) reported being in business, and 150 (36.5%) reported being in engineering.
Placement Test Levels as an Outcome Variable

The placement test level is the outcome variable. Only two levels (i.e., low and
intermediate) are included because a focus of this study is on placement. High levels are
considered qualified, and students who receive high levels are not assigned to any ESL
composition classes. The levels are determined according to the three criteria: intellectual
property, content, and language issues. Intermediate levels of placement essays were
coded as 1; low levels of placement essays were coded as 0. The residual statistics of the
two levels (i.e., low vs. intermediate) of the placement test were checked and indicated
normal distribution of residuals in Figure 1.
232 Park
Figure 1. Histograms of the residuals.
Effect Size Statistics

To ensure the results of the data, the effect size was checked in two ways: (a) a post hoc
power analysis, and (b) the change of R2 (¢R2). The logistic regression post hoc power
analysis was implemented via G*Power. The one-tailed test yielded the power of .99 under
the binomial distribution (Æ = .05). The change of R2 indicates a weighted least squares
effect size measure for the magnitude of the effect. ¢R2 was calculated for each model,
such as the difference between the R2 of the null model and the R2 of each model (i.e.,
Models 1 to 4).
Data Collection
The data were collected from the CoLE. The CoLE is a free and open data set of
international students’ English placement test essays. The students who took placement
compositions at the university testing center consented to having their essays collected
into the corpus repository. Demographic information (i.e., gender, college type, and
academic status) and placement test levels were included in the corpus of each
composition. Compositions were only included with students’ consent if they did not
contain any identifying information about the author, and if there were at least 50
representatives of any given demographic category.
Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, we employed a logistic regression analysis with the use
of SPSS (Version 24; IBM Corp, 2016). Logistic regression is a standard method for finding
the best fitting and the most parsimonious model to describe the relationship between
a dichotomous outcome and a set of predictor variables (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989).
Logistic regression does not require assumptions about the distribution of independent
variables. Independent variables do not need to be normally distributed, linearly related
to dependent variables, nor have homogeneity of variance across any groups, which
is intuitively appealing. To make the intercept meaningful, we dummy-coded all the
demographic variables (i.e., gender, academic status, and college) and centered the
continuous variables (i.e., the TTR and tokens) around the grand mean.
Binary logistic regression (Hancock & Mueller, 2010; Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989;
O’Connell, 2006) was employed in this study. The first analysis involved gender singly as
a binary categorical variable. In the second analysis, the TTR and tokens as continuous
variables were included. The TTR was the sole predictor entered first in Model 2-a. Then,
tokens were added in Model 2-b. In the third analysis, we included all of the demographic
(i.e., gender, academic status, and college type) and linguistic (i.e., the TTR and tokens)
variables to examine the statistical significance of them. Finally, the fourth analysis only
entered the significant predictors from Model 3. Therefore, Model 4 is a reduced model of
the analysis.
Results
This results section includes four different logistic regression models, depending on the
interest of predictors.
Model 1: One Dichotomous Predictor (Gender)

Pearson chi-square goodness-of-fit test and likelihood ratio chi-square yielded that the
assumption of independence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.0) was not rejected, so there was no
significant association between gender and placement test levels as shown in Table 2.
Odds of placement test levels were .975 times larger for males than for females. However,
the odds were close to the assumption of independence (OR = 0.975, 95% CI [0.658,
1.444]) with no statistical significance. The odds ratio for male versus female students
was exp(0.026) = 1.026. An odds ratio is a relative measure of effect by comparing the
intervention group of a study to the comparison or control group. If the outcome of the
ratio is 1, this implies there is no difference between the two groups of the study. The odds
of the intermediate level were about 1.03 times as large for males as females. This indicates
that there was no significant association between gender and placement test levels (R2 =
0.016, df = 1, p = .899).
Model 2: Two Continuous Predictors (TTR & Tokens)

We hypothesized that linguistic features (i.e., TTR and tokens) would provide strong
predictors of human judgments of writing proficiency (i.e., low vs. intermediate). In
Model 2, we found the effect of the TTR after controlling for tokens as shown in Table
3. The coefficient 0.072 was the log-odds estimate for a one-unit increase in the TTR on
the placement test level controlling for the tokens in the model. The coefficient 0.007 was
the log-odds estimate for a one-unit increase in the tokens on the placement test level
234 Park
Table 2. Gender in the equation.
95% CI for
Exp(B)
Step 1 B SE Wald df p Exp(B) Lower Upper
Gender .026 0.201 .016 1 .899 1.026 0.692 1.520
Constant °.231 0.131 3.088 1 .079 0.794
Note. Step 1’s variable is gender. SE = standard error; Wald = the likelihood ratio test for
binary variables; df = degrees of freedom; Exp(B) = the exponentiation of the B coefficient.
controlling for the TTR in the model. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not statistically
significant (R2 = 6.138, df = 8, p = .632). Model 2 was improved with the TTR and the tokens
by explaining 2.72 % (likelihood ratio R2), 6.5 % (Nagelkerke’s R2 ), or 8.7 % (Cox & Snell’s
R2 ) of the variance in the placement test levels (i.e., low vs. intermediate). The Wald test
suggested that the effect of the TTR and tokens on the log-odds of the placement test level
were statistically significant (R2 TTR = 0.072, df = 1, p = .003, 95 % CI [1.024, 1.127]; R2 Tokens
= 0.007, df = 1, p < .001, 95% CI [1.004, 1.009]). This indicates that both the TTR and tokens
were statistically significant predictors of differentiating placement test levels.
Table 3. TTR & Tokens in the equation
95% CI for Exp(B)

TTR .072 .024 8.667 1 .003 1.074 1.024 1.127

Token .007 .001 24.419 1 .000 1.007 1.004 1.009
Constant °.231 .103 5.058 1 .025 0.794
Note. Step 1’s variable are TTR and Token. SE = standard error; Wald = the likelihood ratio test for binary
variables; df= degrees of freedom; Exp(B) = the exponentiation of the B coefficient.
Model 3: Additional Predictors (Academic Status, College Type, Gender,

Tokens, & TTR)
Model 3 included multiple predictors, such as the academic status, college type, tokens,
as well as gender and TTR, although gender and TTR were not statistically significant in
Model 1 and Model 2, respectively. The results of Model 3 with six predictors are shown in
Table 4. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test in Model 3 was not statistically significant (R2 =
7.383, df = 8, p = .496), indicating that the model fits the data well. The model explained
8.5% (likelihood ratio R2 ), 14.8% (Nagelkerke’s R2 ), or 11.0 % (Cox & Snell’s R2 ) of the
variance in the placement test levels (i.e., low vs. intermediate). Gender was insignificant
with high p values (p > .05). For college type, the College of Engineering was statistically
significant (R2 ENG = 7.092, df = 1, p = .008, 95% CI [0.247, 0.8091]), while the College
of Business was not significant (R2 BUS = 0.222, df = 1, p = .638, 95 % CI [0.643, 2.055]),
given the other variables were held constant in the model. For academic status, the odds
ratio for graduate versus undergraduate students was exp(0.686) = 1.985. The odds of the
intermediate level were twice as large for graduate students as undergraduate students.
This indicates that there was a statistically significant association between the academic
status and placement test levels (R2 = 3.98, df = 1, p = .046, 95% CI [1.012, 3.893]). The
coefficient of tokens, 0.006, was the log-odds estimate for a one-unit increase in the tokens
on the placement test level given the other variables were held constant in the model. The
Wald test suggested that the effect of tokens on the log-odds of the placement test level was
statistically significant (R2 = 21.45, df = 1, p < .001, 95% CI [1.004, 1.009]). This indicates that
there was a statistically significant association between tokens and placement test levels.
The coefficient of TTR, 0.064, was the log-odds estimate for a one-unit increase in the TTR
on the placement test level given the other variables were held constant in the model. The
Wald test suggested that the effect of the TTR on the log-odds of the placement test level
was statistically significant (R2 = 6.516, df = 1, p = .011, 95% CI [1.015, 1.120]). This indicates
that there was a statistically significant association between TTR and placement test levels.
Table 4. Demographic and linguistic variables in the equation
95% CI for Exp(B)

Gender .279 .236 1.400 1 .237 1.322 .833 2.098

Col_Bus .140 .296 .222 1 .638 1.150 .643 2.055
Col_Eng -.805 .302 7.092 1 .008 .447 .247 .809
AcadStatus .686 .344 3.980 1 .046 1.985 1.012 3.893
TTR .064 .025 6.516 1 .011 1.066 1.015 1.120
Token .006 .001 21.450 1 .000 1.006 1.004 1.009
Constant -.590 .216 7.454 1 .006 .555
Note. Step 1’s variable are Gender, College of Business, College of Engineering, Academic Status, TTR and Token.
SE = standard error; Wald = the likelihood ratio test for binary variables; df= degrees of freedom; Exp(B) = the
exponentiation of the B coefficient.
Model 4: Significant Predictors (Academic Status, College Type, Tokens,

& TTR)
To develop the most parsimonious and simplistic model, we excluded a non-significant
predictor (i.e., gender) and included all the other significant predictors (i.e., college type,
academic status, tokens, and TTR) to best fit the data in the logistic model. Model 4
produced similar results to Model 3 with significant predictors as shown in Table 5. The
Hosmer and Lemeshow test in Model 4 was not statistically significant (R2 = 5.333, df
= 8, p = .722), indicating that the model fits the data well. The model explained 8.1%
(likelihood ratio R2), 14.1 % (Nagelkerke’s R2), or 10.5 % (Cox & Snell’s R2) of the variance
in the placement test levels (i.e., low vs. intermediate). The College of Engineering was
statistically significant (R2 ENG = 6.222, df = 1, p = .013, 95% CI [0.271, 0.855]), but the
236 Park
College of Business was still not statistically significant (R2 BUS = 0.03, df = 1, p = .863,
95% CI [0.597, 1.849]), given the other variables were held constant in the model. For the
academic status, the odds ratio for graduate versus undergraduate students is exp(0.94)
= 2.559. The odds of the intermediate level were approximately 2.5 times as large for
graduate students as undergraduate students. This indicates that there was a statistically
significant association between the academic status and placement test levels (R2 = 13.523,
df = 1, p < .001, 95% CI [1.551, 4.223]). The coefficient of tokens, .006, was the log-odds
estimate for a one-unit increase in the tokens on the placement test level given the other
variables are held constant in the model. The Wald test suggested that the effect of tokens
on the log-odds of the placement test level was statistically significant (R2 = 20.524, df =
1, p < .001, 95% CI [1.004, 1.009]). This indicates that there was a statistically significant
association between tokens and placement test levels. The coefficient of TTR, .063, was
the log-odds estimate for a one-unit increase in the TTR on the placement test level given
the other variables were held constant in the model. The Wald test suggested that the effect
of TTR on the log-odds of the placement test level was statistically significant (R2 = 6.35, df
= 1, p = .012, 95% CI [1.014, 1.119]). This indicates that there was a statistically significant
association between TTR and placement test levels. The results of logistic regression in
Model 4 suggested the following equation:
Log i st i c r eg r essi on equat i on : Log o f od d s = ln(p/(1 ° p)) = °.412 + (°.732 §
C ol l eg e) + (.94 § St at us) + (.006 § Token) + (.063 § T T R)
Lastly, we considered the assumption of linearity, residual diagnostics, and collinearity.
We conducted the Box-Tidwell test to see the assumption of linearity to the logit for the
continuous independent variables (e.g., token and TTR). This was done by computing
interactions between the continuous predictors and their natural log. The addition of the
two product terms was not statistically significant (p = .397). Therefore, linearity in the
logit can be safely assumed. We also checked residual diagnostics with influence statistics,
such as leverage values and Cook’s distance, to identify extreme or unusual cases. Leverage
values were less than .029 (3 £ 4 [number of predictors] / 411 [sample size]) and the values
of Cook’s D were also less than 1. Thus, the cases from residual diagnostics may not
influence the model’s predictions. For collinearity, we ran a regular ordinary least squares
(OLS) regression to request collinearity diagnostics. The results showed that tolerance of
all the predictor variables was larger than 0.25 and the variance inflation factor was less
than 4. Table 6 presents model summaries with coefficients for various logistic regressions.
Discussion
This study implemented logistic regression analyses to make a prediction of the placement
test levels. In particular, we will discuss the findings in relation to literature reviews if the
results confirm them.
The first research question was whether gender predicts the placement test levels (low
vs. intermediate). The results indicated that gender is not a significant predictor for
differentiating the placement test levels. As the prior literature (Lumsden & Scott, 1995;
Steward, Lim, & Kim, 2015) shows that a significant gender effect of the placement essay
test was not found. Therefore, this study did not confirm that females outperform males on
Table 5. Demographic and linguistic variables in the reduced model
95% CI for Exp(B)

Col_Bus .050 .288 .030 1 .863 1.051 0.597 1.849

Col_Eng °.732 .294 6.222 1 .013 0.481 0.271 0.855
AcadStatus .940 .256 13.523 1 .000 2.559 1.551 4.223
TTR .063 .025 6.350 1 .012 1.065 1.014 1.119
Token .006 .001 20.524 1 .000 1.006 1.004 1.009
Constant °.412 .171 5.781 1 .016 0.662
Note. Step 1’s variable are College of Business, College of Engineering, Academic Status, TTR and Token. SE
= standard error; Wald = the likelihood ratio test for binary variables; df= degrees of freedom; Exp(B) = the
exponentiation of the B coefficient.
essay examinations. This would provide a good indication that the placement test results
are not be biased by gender.
The second research question was whether both the TTR and tokens predict the
level difference. The TTR would be one of the measurement scales of writing because
many linguistics researchers (Douglas, 2009; Harrington, 2018; Read, 2000) maintain that
the TTR can be a useful indicator of lexical density, variation, and learners’ language
proficiency. As we examined if both predictors (TTR and tokens) make a difference, it
turned out that the TTR and tokens were significant predictors of the placement test levels
(low vs. intermediate). With other predictors in Models 3 and 4, the TTR was the significant
predictor. As indicated in the Results section, the assumptions of linearity and collinearity
of the TTR and tokens were all met. Therefore, it can be said that the single TTR may
not be a good predictor to explain the proportion of variance in distinguishing different
placement test levels (i.e., low vs. intermediate). Rather, tokens and the TTR together were
significant predictors of different placement test levels. This indicates that the length of
the placement test essays matters to writing proficiency. The more students write in the
placement test, the higher level they can receive. Based on Read’s (2000) claim, a high TTR
may show lexical variation, which may lead to a higher placement test level. As shown
in Model 2, however, the TTR should not be the only predictor of the assessment. The
findings from the logistic regression analyses seem to support an evidence of applying the
TTR and tokens to assess students’ placement test essays.
The third research question was whether all the demographic and language-related
variables predict the placement test levels (low vs. intermediate). In Model 3, gender was
not statistically significant. As a result, judgment was not made on placement test levels
with generic information of gender. Other variables, however, were statistically significant
predictors. For instance, graduate students obtained intermediate levels approximately
2.5 times more than undergraduate students. Furthermore, college type was statistically
significant. Compared to the College of Arts and Sciences as a baseline, almost half of
the students from the College of Engineering received the intermediate test level. North
238 Park
(2005a, 2005b) indicated that students from an arts background were found to achieve
significantly higher grades for essay writing than those from a science background. R.
Cheng and Erben’s (2012) study also showed that successful language learning was closely
tied to the students’ programs of study. For instance, students in the art-related programs
tended to adapt to a new environment more quickly than those with science-related
majors owing to their relatively higher level of productive language skills (e.g., speaking
and writing) and frequent interactions with their English-speaking peers.
Several limitations should be addressed for improving the quality of the analysis of
models to fit the data. The first limitation is about variable issues. We did not include the
information about the advanced levels because the focus of this study is to examine factors
of different levels of international students assigned to ESL composition courses. Since we
do not have advanced level data, the results may not be generalizable. The second is about
the practical significance. Tokens and TTR are significant predictors with a p value (p <
.05). However, it should be noted whether the log-odds estimates of 0.006 for the token
variable and 0.064 for the TTR variable for a one-unit increase matter to the real world.
It would make much sense if the log-odds estimate for a 10-unit increase is assessed to
see a practical significance in the data of placement test essay components. Lastly, the
variances explained by the models seem limited despite the significant predictors. It may
be necessary to explore other predictors for practical value of investigating different levels
of placement essay tests.
Conclusion and Implications

This study touched upon what features (i.e., demographic and linguistic) of international
students can predict levels (i.e., low vs intermediate) of placement test essays. Gender
did not influence the prediction of the essay test levels. Hence, this study made an
argument against prior studies (Becker & Johnston, 1999; Du Plessis & Du Plessis, 2009;
Harris & Kerby, 1997; Lumsden & Scott, 1987; Oppong, 2013; Williams et al., 1992) about a
significant gender effect. Rather, this study agreed with several studies (Holley & Jenkins,
1993; Lumsden & Scott, 1995; Steward et al., 2015) that found no difference based on
gender. In order to further study what makes placement test levels different, there is a need
to explore potential demographic predictors, such as ethnicity and education in future
research.
In light of disciplinary variation (i.e., arts vs. sciences), students from engineering
received intermediate levels half as much as those from arts. As Neumann (2001)
and North (2005a, 2005b) claimed for the disciplinary variation (i.e., soft disciplines
receive higher outcome of academics than hard disciplines), this result may indicate
that Chinese international students who are accepted by a certain department, such
as engineering, would need more attention to increasing writing proficiency. At an
institutional level, departments or colleges should make an effort to support international
students by developing and offering appropriate writing courses or workshops based on
their academic needs. L2 writing teachers and educators should consider the challenge
that the students in hard disciplines (e.g., science and engineering) encounter in writing
classes.
As shown in this study, the TTR and tokens are considered as significant indicators of
writing levels. The results of this study also affirmed prior literature that length of writing
and lexical density would matter in the enhancement of writing proficiency (Baba, 2009;
L. Cheng & Fox, 2017; Crossley & McNamara, 2012; Crossley et al., 2014; Doró, 2007;
Ferris, 1994; Read, 2015; Reid, 1986, 1990; Richards, 1986; Singleton, 2001). L2 writing
teachers also need to consider how they can enhance Chinese international students’
writing proficiency by implementing learning strategies of lexical density. Future research
should keep in mind these linguistics features and theorize a close relationship for writing
proficiency, such as length of writing with tokens and lexical density and variation with the
TTR.
References
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 191–208.
Becker, W. E. & Johnston, C. (1999). The relationship between multiple choice and
essay response questions in assessing economics understanding. The Economic Record,
75(231), 348–357.
Bible, L., Simkin, M. G., & Kuechler, W. L. (2008). Using multiple-choice tests to evaluate
students’ understanding of accounting. Accounting Education, 17, 55–68.
Bolger, N. & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Method of measurement and gender differences in
scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(2), 165–174.
Bridgeman, B. (1991). Essays and multiple-choice tests as predictors of college freshman
GPA. Research in Higher Education, 32(3), 319–332.
Bridgeman, B. & Lewis, C. (1994). The relationship of essay and multiple-choice scores
with grades in college courses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(1), 37–50.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Cheng, L. & Fox, J. (2017). Who are we assessing? Placement, needs analysis and
diagnostics. In Cheng, L. & Fox, J., editors, Assessment in the language classroom: Applied
linguistics for the language classroom, volume (pp., pages 139–165, London. Palgrave.
Cheng, R. & Erben, A. (2012). Language anxiety: Experiences of Chinese graduate students
at U.S. higher institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 477–497.
Corp, I. B. M. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics. Version, 24.
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., Allen, L. K., Guo, L., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Linguistic
microfeatures to predict L2 writing proficiency: A case study in automated writing
evaluation. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 7(1).
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency:
The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2),
115–135.
Doró, K. (2007). The use of high- and low-frequency verbs in English native and non-
native student writing. In Lengyel, Z. & Navracsics, J., editors, Second language lexical
processes: Applied linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives, volume (pp., pages 117–
129, Clevedon, England. Multilingual Matters.
Douglas, S. R. (2009). Type token ratios and success on the effective writing test.
240 Park
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL

compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155.
Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels
of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420.
Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor, MI.
Ferris, D. R. & Hedgcock, J. (2013). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Grover, J. (2013). Writing for the future. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 9(1), 21–43.
Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (2010). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the
social sciences. Routledge, New York.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson Longman, New Jersey,
NJ.
Harrington, M. (2018). Size as a dimension of L2 vocabulary skill. In Harrington, M., editor,
Lexical facility: Size, recognition speed and consistency as dimensions of second language
vocabulary knowledge, pages 3–24, London. Palgrave Macmillan.
Harris, R. B. & Kerby, W. C. (1997). Statewide performance assessment as a complement
to multiple-choice testing in high school economics. Journal of Economic Education,
28(2), 122–134.
Holley, J. H. & Jenkins, K. E. (1993). The relationship between student learning style and
performance on various test question formats. Journal of Education for Business, 68(5),
301–308.
Hosmer, D. W. & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York.
Huang, L. (2010). Seeing eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate
and undergraduate students from students’ and instructors’. perspectives. Language
Teaching Research, 14(4), 517–539.
Hughs, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
32, 150–169.
Lindqvist, C., Gudmundson, A., & Bardel, C. (2013). A new approach to measuring
lexical sophistication in L2 oral production. Eurosla Monographs Series 2: L2 vocabulary
acquisition, knowledge and use. Eurosala, Amsterdam.
Lumsden, K. G. & Scott, A. (1995). Economics performance on multiple choice and essay
examinations: a largescale study of accounting students. Accounting Education, 4(2),
153–167.
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher
Education, 26(2), 135–146.
North, S. (2005a). Different values, different skills?: A comparison of essay writing by
students from arts and science backgrounds. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 517–
533.
North, S. (2005b). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays.
Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431–452.
O’Connell, A. A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand
Oaks. SAGE, CA.
Oppong, C. A. (2013). Gender differences in students’ performance in history at senior
high schools in Cape Coast. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(1), 34–39.
Plessis, S. D. & Plessis, S. D. (2009). A new and direct test of the ‘gender bias’.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Read, J. (2015). Issues in post-entry language assessment in English-medium universities.
Language Teaching, 48(2), 217–234.
Reid, J. (1986). Using the writer’s workbench in composition teaching and testing. In
Stansfield, C., editor, Technology and language testing, pages 167–188, Alexandria, VA.
TESOL.
Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a
contrastive rhetoric perspective. In Kroll, B., editor, Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom, pages 191–210, Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, B. (1986). Type/token ratios: What do they really tell us? Journal of Child
Language, 14, 201–209.
Service, E. T. (2017). Developing an ESL placement test for community college students.
Singleton, D. (2001). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Singleton-Jackson, J. A., Lumsden, D. B., & Newsom, R. (2009). Johnny still can’t write,
even if he goes to college: A study of writing proficiency in higher education graduate
students. Current Issues in Education, 12, 1–39.
Steward, S., Lim, D., & Kim, J. (2015). Factors influencing college persistence for first-time
students. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 12–20.
Thomas, D. (2005). Type-token ratios in one teacher’s classroom talk: An investigation of
lexical complexity (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of, Birmingham.
Williams, M. L., Waldauer, C., & Duggal, V. G. (1992). Gender differences in economic
knowledge: An extension of the analysis. Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 219–
231.
Author biography
Eunjeong Park is a PhD candidate in the Department of Teaching and Learning,
specializing in Foreign, Second, and Multilingual Language Education at The Ohio State
University. Her research interests include second language academic writing, instructed
second language instruction, and mixed methods research. Email: park.1752@osu.edu

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 242–261
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.266
ojed.org/jis
Undergraduate International Student

Enrollment Forecasting Model: An
Application of Time Series Analysis
Yu April Chena , Ran Lib and Linda Serra Hagedornb
Abstract: This study developed statistical models to forecast international undergraduate student
enrollment at a Midwest university. The authors constructed a Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated
Moving Average model with input variables to estimate future enrollment. This model reflected
enrollment patterns by semester through highlighting seasonality. Further, authors added input
variables such as visa policy changes, the rapid increase of Chinese undergraduate enrollment,
and tuition rate into the model estimation. The visa policy change and the increase of Chinese
undergraduate enrollment were significant predictors of international undergraduate enrollment.
The effect of tuition rates was significant but minimal in magnitude. Findings of this study generate
significant implications for policy, enrollment management, and student services for international
students.
Keywords: enrollment forecasting, international students, SARIMA model, time series

analysis, undergraduate international enrollment
Introduction
Over the past decades, a number of external changes have influenced the finance
operations of U.S. higher education institutions. Since the latest economic recession,
college/university revenues have become more reliant on income derived directly from
students and their families and less on state government appropriations. Under the
tuition-driven revenue model, the influence of student enrollment on budgeting and
strategic planning has become crucial. Simply put, the ability to predict accurate student
enrollment has become critical for institutional planning and operations.
From the academic years 2006–2007 to 2016–2017, international college student
enrollment in the United States increased dramatically from 582,948 to 1,078,822. This
represents 5.3% of the entire student body (Institute of International Education [IIE],
a Louisiana State University.

b Iowa State University.
Undergraduate International Student Enrollment Forecasting Model 243
2017a). International students bring many benefits to U.S. campuses, including diverse
cultural perspectives and financial resources, especially important to public institutions
as most international students will pay a higher non-resident tuition rate. Moreover,
some universities have added an international fee on top of non-resident tuition making
international students the premium group with respect to cost. Since institutional budgets
may rely on this premium, it is crucial to accurately forecast international enrollment for
strategic planning and other purposes.
Reasons for international enrollment changes may vary. Tuition rates, employment
opportunities, the likelihood of obtaining a permanent residency, visa policy, and campus
environment all affect international enrollment (Bass, 2006; Bohman, 2009; Mazzarol &
Soutar, 2002; Pimpa, 2004; Shih, 2016). It is imperative to build a sound forecasting model
that considers these influential factors.
There is scant research on enrollment forecasting of international undergraduates
at the institutional level. This lack of research could be potentially problematic since
accurate budgeting and strategic planning are affected by this enrollment. To fill this gap,
this study develops a statistical model that can be used to better forecast international
undergraduate student enrollment at the institutional level. Specifically, we utilize
international enrollment data from Midwest University (pseudonym), a large, 4-year,
research-intensive, land-grant public university located in middle America. Although
the direct implication may only benefit this particular university, the approach of
model building can provide other 4-year colleges and universities with an alternative
solution to international enrollment forecasting other than intuitive estimates. Further,
because many international graduate students may have assistantships that pay for their
tuition and fees, the enrollment trend of international undergraduates may have a more
significant influence on budgeting and institutional planning. Thus, we specifically focus
on international undergraduate enrollment forecasting at Midwest University.
We utilize time series techniques (i.e., Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving
Average [SARIMA] model) to describe the international enrollment trend over time
and construct a statistically sound forecasting model. We also incorporate influential
factors such as tuition, local employment status, and visa policy changes that may affect
international undergraduate enrollment in the forecasting model. The consideration
of seasonality (i.e., enrollment data collected by semesters) and influential factors is
generalizable to similar statistical approach in other colleges and universities. In sum,
our research will highlight a statistically sound approach, namely, the time series analysis,
to higher education administrators and practitioners who are interested in accurately
predicting future international enrollment in their institutions. We answer the following
research questions:
1. What is the enrollment trend for international undergraduate students at Midwest

University?
2. What is the best forecasting model for predicting international undergraduate
enrollment at Midwest University, considering the effect of seasonality and the
impact of input variables such as tuition, local unemployment rate, visa policy
changes, and other related events?
244 Chen, Li and Hagedorn
Literature Review
International Enrollment in the United States
The last decade has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of international students
in American postsecondary institutions. While the overall national enrollment remained
relatively stagnant between 2010 and 2016 (Hussar & Bailey, 2016), international
enrollment consistently increased. Further, international undergraduate enrollment
increased at a higher rate than international graduate enrollment in five of the six most
recent academic years (IIE, 2017b). It is highly likely that undergraduate enrollment
will continue to play a greater role in the overall international enrollment growth for the
foreseeable future.
Cost–Benefit Analysis
International students have diverse reasons and motivations to study abroad. Some
international students are highly motivated to obtain U.S. academic degrees/credentials,
while others may just want to explore living abroad (Choudaha, Orosz, & Chang, 2012).
A cost–benefit analysis can help to better understand the decision to study abroad. The
cost–benefit analysis can be defined as
. . . a practical way of assessing the desirability of projects, where it

is important to take a long-term view (in the sense of looking at
repercussions in the distant future, as well as the near future) and a wide
view (in the sense of allowing for side-effects of many kinds on many
persons, industries, regions, etc.), i.e., it implies the enumeration and
evaluation of all the relevant costs and benefits. (Prest & Turvey, 1965, p.
683)
In its classic application in higher education, researchers have argued that if the benefits of
attending college are higher than the costs (including opportunity costs and explicit costs)
of not attending college, a high school graduate might choose to enter a college rather
than immediately enter the job market (Bennett, 1993). The similar analytical approach
can be used to interpret international students’ decision-making in regards to study in a
U.S. college/university. For example, if the benefits of studying abroad are greater than
the costs, an international student may choose to study abroad rather than study within
the home country, or study in one foreign country over the other. Specifically, strong
family financial support might encourage international students to choose study abroad
because it will address or greatly help with the costs (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). On the
other hand, tuition and living cost might serve as a pull factor that direct students to
choose one destination country over another (Gomes & Murphy, 2003; Mazzarol & Soutar,
2002; Pimpa, 2004). Furthermore, when deciding which institution to attend, international
students often consider financial aid opportunities and part-time working opportunities
on campus (Bohman, 2009).
The discussion of costs and benefits regarding studying abroad can be further expanded
beyond economic/financial factors. For example, limited access to higher education in the
home country and the high reputation of higher education credentials in the host country
(benefits) may motivate international students to study abroad (Bohman, 2009; Gomes &
Murphy, 2003; Pimpa, 2004). Specific to study in the United States, an IIE report indicated
that 77% of prospective students believed that the United States has a high quality higher
education system, and 78% believed that the United States has a wide range of institutions
and programs to fit their individual needs (IIE, 2015).
Visa Policy
An overarching reason international students study in the United States is to expand career
and life opportunities (Borjas, 2002; Chang, Schulman, & Lu, 2014). The visa policy in
the United States serves as a critical gatekeeper for international students to obtain such
opportunities. It is important to note that post-9/11policies emphasized the screening
of student visa applicants (Alberts, 2007; Urias & Yeakey, 2009; Walfish, 2002), leading to
longer waiting times to acquire student visas. As a result, acquiring a student visa has
become a serious concern for many prospective international students worldwide (IIE,
2015).
Further, in 2017 President Trump established a travel ban affecting students from Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Since Iran is the 11th leading country
sending international students, this ban had a significant effect on the number of students
coming to the United States. Therefore, the travel ban threatened and reduced the diversity
of the international student pool. As a result, the number of new international enrollment
decreased by 3.3% in the 2016–2017 academic year (IIE, 2017a) due to visa denials, a more
complex visa application process, and fears and uncertainties due to the unpredictable
political environment under the Trump administration (Redden, 2017).
In addition, legislators tightly controlled and restricted high-skill immigrant labor
through changes in the H-1B visa program for international employment. For example,
a year cap was placed on H-1B working visa applicants based on their origin countries. In
October 2003, the H-1B visa cap significantly reduced the number of visas from 195,000 to
65,000 overall (U.S. State Department, n.d.). Economic studies revealed that this dramatic
drop significantly impacted the quantity (lowered international enrollment by 10%) as
well as the quality of international enrollment in the subsequent years (Kato & Sparber,
2013; Shih, 2016). Moreover, Shih (2016) concluded that H-1B visa issuances have a
strong positive association with international enrollment even after controlling for other
economic indicators such as home country gross domestic product, exchange rates, trade
linkage between countries, workforce demand, and demographics.
In sum, previous studies have reported findings concerning international enrollment
in the United States. While some studies have revealed critical predictors of international
enrollment changes, others indicated factors that influence international students’
decision-making at the individual level. Although little research has focused on forecasting
international enrollment, previous studies indicated potential predictors (i.e., tuition cost,
living cost, visa policy changes, local workforce indicators, etc.) that should be considered
in a forecasting model. More methodological knowledge about constructing such a
forecasting model is summarized in the following section.
Student Enrollment Forecasting Using a Time Series Approach

Time Series Approach
Student enrollment is a key factor influencing budget allocation, program planning, and
appropriations from state legislatures. For planning purposes, institutional administrators
must project enrollments for the upcoming academic year as well as extended time periods
(e.g., 10 years). Despite its importance, an accurate enrollment forecast is difficult due
to (a) unexpected turning points in enrollment patterns, (b) uncertainty of appropriate
forecasting methods, and (c) difficulty of identifying and measuring factors influencing
student enrollment (Chen, 2008). A number of techniques have been used for enrollment
forecasting, including subjective judgments, the ratio method, results from a cohort
survival study, simulation methods, time series analysis, and regression analysis (Chen,
2008; Layzell, 1997). Time series analysis is often considered to be robust and superior to
other methods when its assumptions are met and when sufficient data points are available
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013).
As a sequential and ordered collection of observations through equally spaced time
intervals, a time series can be used to forecast future values (Wei, 1994). The nature of
time series is based on a fundamental assumption that the data points close to each other
in a time series are correlated. In other words, the predicted future values depend on the
currently available data values while the present values depend on the values in the past
(Vandaele, 1983; Wei, 1994).
The SARIMA Model

There are several time series techniques which can be applied to generate a mathematical
model that approximates a historical pattern and forecasts the future values of a time
series. The Box-Jenkins or Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) method
(Box & Jenkins, 1970) is one of the major forecasting techniques used. A typical ARIMA
model involves both autoregressive (AR) and moving average (MA) processes. The
autoregressive process is a stochastic process in which future values are calculated based
on a weighted sum of past values. For example, AR (1) is the first order process, in which
the current value is based on the immediately preceding value. A moving average is a
calculation of analyzing data points by creating a series of averages of different subsets of
the data. A moving average term often helps time series analysis to smooth out short-term
fluctuations.
One disadvantage of applying the ARIMA model in enrollment forecasting is that it
requires a minimum of 40–50 longitudinal observations to extract a good prediction
(Chen, 2008). Institutions may have difficulty tracking data back for 40 or 50 years
for international enrollment. Moreover, due to the significant shifting of international
relations through the decades, going back 50 years may not provide a predictable pattern
for international student enrollments. One solution to this problem is to introduce
seasonality to the ARIMA model.
Seasonality occurs when a time series has a repeating pattern corresponding to regular
seasonal periods. In order to take the influence of seasonality into account, Box and
Jenkins (1970) extended the stochastic ARIMA models to Seasonal ARIMA (SARIMA)
models. Very few previous studies in education have utilized the SARIMA technique.
One exception is Koopmans’ (2011) attempt of using a SARIMA model to analyze daily
attendance patterns in two urban high schools over a 1-year period. In this study, the
SARIMA model allows the prediction of enrollment by academic semesters (Koopmans,
2011). Tracking by semesters may not only present a more feasible model but is also
more in line with the data archived by institutions specifically pertaining to international
students. In other words, by using the semester measures, we may be able to establish a
forecasting model with 15 or 20 years of international enrollment data.
Determining Input Variables

Multiple external factors may influence student enrollment trends in higher education.
For international enrollment, in particular, such external influences may be from visa
policy changes, local labor market indicators, tuition rates, and other related national
events (Bohman, 2009; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Pimpa, 2004; Shin, 2016). The accuracy of
forecasting enrollment may largely depend on selecting appropriate variables to represent
the influences (or input) from external factors (Chen, 2008). Transfer function modeling
techniques can be used to specify forecasting models that contain input variables. Transfer
modeling is often used to capture external events such as strikes, sales promotions, and
public policy changes (Wei, 1994). The technique has been successfully used to study
the impact of air pollution control and economic policies (Box & Tiao, 1975; Wei, 1994).
In the current study, we use transfer function modeling to study the influences from
various input series. For example, visa policy changes, tuition rates, local unemployment
rates, and national events related to international enrollment may be considered as input
variables in our SARIMA model.
Human Capital Theory as a Theoretical Framework

The human capital framework has its roots in the works of Becker (1975). Human capital
theory and its application have been closely related to the cost–benefit analysis framework.
Becker (1975) viewed workers’ skills and knowledge as a certain stock of productive capital.
This type of capital was derived from schooling and training and would bring economic
returns in the form of earnings. Thus, for obtaining more economic capital in the labor
market, one must invest in education and training to increase human capital (Becker, 1975;
Catsiapis, 1987).
Studying in the United States can be a huge investment in human capital for
international students and their families. The decision of making this investment might
be strongly influenced by the perceived labor market returns such as earnings with a
U.S. degree versus a domestic degree and working opportunities in the U.S. job market.
It might also be influenced by the explicit costs associated with studying in a U.S.
college/university, or in particular, the tuition and living costs when studying in the United
States. For higher education institutions that actively recruit international students,
the perceived benefits and explicit costs are likely two highly important indicators to
predict international enrollment. The opportunity costs (i.e., the foregone opportunities
and benefits of enrolling in a domestic college/university) are related to the individual

countries’ higher education systems and hence difficult to control.
Research Method
Data Source
We obtained data for the total full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment of international
undergraduates at Midwest University from fall semester of 1999 to spring semester of 2014
from the Office of the Registrar at Midwest University. The FTE enrollment was calculated
on the 10th day of the fall and spring semesters (i.e., early September and late January)
and the 10th day of the second summer session (i.e., late June) of the college schedule.
The timing of FTE calculation considered the add/drop deadline schedules (census dates)
that are 1 week after the first day of class for all semesters. The FTE enrollment calculation
was conducted in a way to avoid errors caused by add/drop activities (i.e., 10th day of fall
and spring semesters) and to include accurate enrollment in summer sessions (i.e., 10th
day of the second summer session).
Midwest University is a large, research-intensive, public land-grant institution with
an FTE enrollment in the fall of 2012 of over 30,000. The FTE enrollment has steadily
increased each year since Fall 2012 (e.g., the FTE enrollment was 34,573 in Fall 2017).
According to the enrollment data in Fall 2017, the undergraduate student body at Midwest
University consisted of 42.5% female and 13.7% racial/ethnicity minorities (Midwest
University, 2017).
For our analyses, we examined only the international undergraduate enrollment data
at Midwest University. We included all undergraduate international students with either
an F1 or a J1 visa at the time of data collection. Midwest University enrolled a total
of 2,204 international undergraduate students in Fall 2014, comprising over half of the
entire (graduate and undergraduate) international enrollment and 6% of total enrollment
(Midwest University, 2017). This number included both new and returning students.
Compared with 1,051 international undergraduate students in Fall 1999, the international
undergraduate enrollment increased more than 110% during the period of Fall 1999 to Fall
2014.
Overall, 68 data points over time were included for describing and forecasting
international undergraduate enrollment. This is a sufficient sample size to construct
a reliable ARIMA/SARIMA model (Chen, 2008). In addition to the international
undergraduate enrollment data, we also obtained the international tuition rate at Midwest
University. Further, we gathered local unemployment rate data from state government
reports. Finally, the trend of Chinese undergraduate enrollment data was acquired from
Open Doors data of the Institute of International Education. China was recognized as the
number one origin country of international undergraduates for the seventh consecutive
year (IIE, 2017a).
Input Variables Used in This Study

Our choice of potential input variables was based on the theoretical framework and
previous literature. We considered two input variables that describe the impact of visa
policy changes. One variable was added to reflect the post-9/11 policy in student visa (F1
and J1 visa) applications. Another variable was added to reflect the significant drop in
working visa (H-1B visa) approvals since 2003. These two variables were dummy coded.
For example, the values of the post-9/11 policy variable were coded as “0” from Fall 1999
and changed to “1” since Fall 2012. Similarly, the values of H-1B variable were coded as
“0” from Fall 1999 and changed to “1” beginning Fall 2003. The critical role of student visa
(F1 and J1 visas) policies is obvious. Successfully obtaining a student visa is associated
with the economic costs (e.g., application fees, travel fees, etc.) and directly influences
students’ decision of enrollment (i.e., failed to obtain a student visa on-time will cause
an international student not be able to enroll). The working visa (H-1B visa) policy also
had a significant influence on international enrollment since it is an indicator of job
opportunities and post-graduate training opportunities in the U.S. It also may lead to
obtaining a permanent residency for foreign workers (green card).
Further, we added an input variable that reflects the rapid increase of Chinese
undergraduate enrollment. According to IIE, Chinese undergraduate students increased
8.2% in 2006–2007, and continued growing rapidly over the next 10 years. Particularly
during the years of 2007–2008 and 2012–2013, Chinese students increased more than 20%
every academic year while the number of international students from India (the second
leading place of origins) was stagnant or declining. The Chinese enrollment increase was
the primary drive on overall international enrollment during those academic years. As
a result of the constant rapid increase, China has been the number one origin country
for international undergraduate students since 2009–2010 (IIE, 2017a). In 2016, Chinese
students made up more than 30% of the entire international enrollment (or, 328,547
students) in U.S. higher education institutions. While the Chinese enrollment at Midwest
University reflected this national trend. We were not able to obtain nationality breakdowns
of international enrollment by semester. Therefore, we decided to create a dichotomous
variable to reflect the rapid increase of Chinese enrollment and its continuous impact
on international enrollment at Midwest. In particular, the values of Chinese enrollment
variable was coded as “0” from Fall 1999 and changed to “1” since Fall 2007.
In addition, we added several input variables that reflect local impact. First, we included
international tuition rates between Fall 1999 and Spring 2014 at Midwest University. The
international tuition rate increased 105.4% during the period (from $4,674 in Fall 1999
to $9,767 in Fall 2014). While the full-time enrollment tuition rates for fall and spring
semesters are reported clearly, we had to manually calculate full-time enrollment tuition
rates for summer semesters. A summer-session student has to register for six credit
hours courses to be counted as full time. Therefore, tuition charges for six credit hours
were calculated as the full-time enrollment tuition rates for summer semesters between
Fall 1999 and Spring 2014. Second, we reflect the local employment environment by
adding information about the unemployment rate between 1999 and 2014. We calculated
the unemployment rate by semester through averaging the monthly unemployment rate
during fall, spring and summer semesters as reported in the State Workforce Development
Annual Report.
Data Analysis
Our data analysis involved three phases. In Phase 1, we described the trend of international
undergraduate enrollment at Midwest University from Fall 1999 to Spring 2014. We
conducted this procedure by plotting the data points. The plot served as a base for
identifying the initial SARIMA model in phase two.
In Phase 2, we constructed a SARIMA model for forecasting international undergrad-
uate enrollment in the future. A SARIMA model is denoted as , where, p is the amount
of autocorrelation (or an autoregressive term); d is the systematic change over time (or
the trend); q is the moving average term of the time series data. Further, P indicates the
seasonal autocorrelation (or a seasonal autoregressive term); D is the seasonal trend; Q
is the seasonal moving average term; s is the seasonal period. Three steps were involved
in the model identification process: tentative identification, estimation, and diagnostic
checking (Meeker, 2001). Tentative identification includes investigating the characteristics
of data, determining transformation, tentatively identifying models based on the sample
autocorrelation function, the sample partial autocorrelation function, and the model fits.
Once the tentative models had been identified, maximum likelihood estimation was used
to estimate the parameters (e.g., p, d, q, P, D, Q, and s) of the tentatively identified models.
Next, we conducted the diagnostic checking on residual statistics, Ljung-Box test (Ljung
& Box, 1978), and others to determine model fit. When there were multiple models iden-
tified, diagnostic checking was used to identify the best model. In addition to the above
diagnostic statistics, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to compare the model
fits and inform the model selection.
The goal of Phase 3 was to improve the forecasting model developed in phase two
by introducing input variables. We adopted transfer function modeling techniques to
introduce potential input variables into the model. The criteria of model selection
included (a) the significance of the input variable as a predictor of the enrollment; (b)
the model fit changes (i.e., AIC, log-likelihood, etc.) due to added input variables; and
(c) previous literature and theory support. The final forecasting model included the
input variables that significantly impact international undergraduate enrollment. We also
supported the inclusion of selected input variables through findings in previous studies.
All analyses were conducted in the statistical program R.
Results
Describing the Trend
In the first phase of data analysis, we plotted international undergraduate enrollment
from Fall 1999 to the Spring 2014 semesters (Figure 1). The international undergraduate
enrollment shows a very strong seasonality. For each year, the highest FTE numbers were
in the fall semester, while the lowest was in the summer semester. The spring semester
typically had the second highest number and was very close to the fall FTE number. After
a decrease from 2005–2006 to 2008–2009, the international undergraduate enrollment at
Midwest University increased rapidly.
The SARIMA Forecasting Model

In Phase 2, we identified a forecasting model with seasonality. After comparing several
competing models, we identified international undergraduate FTE enrollment model as
the with log transformation (). Figure 2 displays the model output. In the Figure, the black
dots after the 2014 spring semester represent forecasting of international undergraduate
enrollment. The surrounding blue lines provide the 95% prediction intervals.
In this SARIMA forecasting model, we have a regular moving average term and a
seasonal moving average term with the first order of seasonal differencing (). This means
that the international undergraduate enrollment at Midwest University is influenced and
forecasted by (a) the moving average of previous semesters, and (b) the moving average of
the enrollment in similar semesters in previous years.
Figure 1. The trend of international FTE student enrollment at Midwest University (1998–1999 to
2013–2014).
The Final Forecasting Model with Input Variables

Based on the SARIMA forecasting model identified in Phase 2, we further added potential
input variables to improve the model. The potential input variables that involved in
this process were (a) a dummy-coded variable representing the one-time impact of post-
9/11 student visa policy change since Fall 2002; (b) a dummy-coded variable representing
the rapid decrease of H-1B working visas and its continued influence since fall 2003;
(c) a dummy-coded variable representing the rapid increase of Chinese undergraduate
enrollment nationwide since Fall 2007; (d) a longitudinal numeric variable representing
the tuition rates by semester; and (e) a longitudinal numeric variable representing the
state’s unemployment rates. We constructed a full model with all input variables included
Figure 2. The SARIMA forecasting model.
Note. The black dots indicate observed data points between Fall 1999 and Spring 2014 (connected by
red lines) and forecasted data points after the Spring 2014 academic year (connected by blue lines).
Blue lines also demonstrate prediction intervals.
as well as several forecasting models with some of the input variables included. Among
these competing models, we identified the final model which included the input variables
(a) tuition rate by semester, (b) H-1B policy impact since Fall 2003, and (c) the rapid
increase of Chinese undergraduate enrollment nationwide since Fall 2007. Table 1 displays
the model summary, parameter estimates, and model fit for three models: a baseline
SARIMA model without input variables (Model 1), the final model with three selected input
variables (Model 2), and a competing model with all input variables included (Model 3).
A linear regression analysis was conducted in order to identify the input variables
that significantly influence international undergraduate enrollment. All five potential
input variables were used as independent variables. According to the results, post-9/11
student visa policy changes and state unemployment were not significant in predicting
international undergraduate enrollment at Midwest University. Table 2 illustrates the
summary of the regression analysis with three selected input variables. The results
indicated that tuition rate, the decrease of H-1B issuance and rapid increase of Chinese
undergraduate students were significant predictors of international undergraduate
enrollment. However, it should be noted that the magnitude of the influences from the
tuition rate is minimal.
Figure 3 illustrates the final forecasting model with three selected input variables (i.e.,
tuition rate, H-1B visa policy, Chinese student enrollment increase). This model had a
better model fit compared with the forecasting model without any input variables (Model
1 in Table 1). The model-fit comparison was based on examining the magnitude of the AIC
and the °2 log likelihood. Smaller numbers of these two model-fit indicators demonstrate
a better model fit. Furthermore, the model diagnostic tests confirmed the goodness of fit
for the final model (Figures 4 and 5). The plot of residuals versus fitted value supported the
Table 1. Model summary.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

SARIMA(p, d, q)(P, D, Q)3 (1, 0, 1) (1, 1 , 0)3 (1, 0, 1) (1, 1, 0)3 (1, 0, 1) (1, 1, 0)3
∞ transformation 0 0 0
D (differences) 1 1 1
Numbers of intervention term 0 3 5
'1 0.879*** 0.876*** 0.889***
(SE) (0.007) (0.088) (0.086)
µ1 0.307* 0.285* 0.368*
(SE) (°0.006) (0.167) (0.169)
©1 0.286* 0.359* 0.391*
(SE) (°0.005) (0.172) (0.176)
Ø1 (tuition) °0.0001 °0.0001
(SE) (0.0002) (0.0002)
Ø2 (H1B Visa) 0.041 °0.002
(SE) (0.054) (0.052)
Ø3 (Chinese enrollment) °0.033 0.004
(SE) (0.050) (0.048)
Ø4 (9/11) °0.047
(SE) (0.042)
(Unemployment rate) 0.050*
(SE) (0.022)
SBC 0.083 0.083 0.077
AICc °78.378 °68.288 °69.85
-2log(likelihood) °86.378 °82.288 °87.85
Note. Model 1 = no input variables; Model 2 = three input variables; Model 3 = all input variables; SE =
Standard Error; SBC = Schwartz Bayesian Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.
* p <.05, *** p < .001.
Table 2. Summary of regression analysis.
Variable SE t p R2
Model 0.738
Constant °6.796 2.123 °3.201 .003**
Tuition 0.003 <0.001 7.810 <.001***
H1B °8.429 1.324 °6.366 <.001***
Chinese 3.284 1.227 2.676 .011**
Note.§§ < .05; §§§ < .001
assumption of linearity with a few outliers and suggested the variances of the error terms
are roughly equal. The normal Q-Q plot showed the points forming a roughly straight line
indicating normality of the data distribution.
Figure 3. The SARIMA forecasting model with three input variables.
Blue lines also demonstrate prediction intervals.
Lastly, we compared our prediction numbers with recently updated international

enrollment statistics at Midwest University. Figure 6 added three actual enrollment
numbers of Fall 2014, Fall 2015, and Fall 2016. Specifically, our prediction of this three
time points was 2,309 in Fall 2014, 2,409 in Fall 2015, and 2,347 in Fall 2016. The actual
enrollment was 2,202 in fFall 2014, 2,138 in Fall 2015, and 2,204 in Fall 2016. All data points
were within the prediction interval.
Discussion
This study established an enrollment-forecasting model for international undergraduate
enrollment at Midwest University. We adopted time series techniques and considered the
impacts of seasonality as well as critical input variables. To reflect the seasonality, we
collected international undergraduate enrollment data by semester. The seasonal pattern
of enrollment (fall semester has the most enrollment and summer semester has the least
enrollment) was well captured by the SARIMA model (Figure 2). Technically, adding the
seasonality also solved the issue of lacking data points. It is very common that higher
education institutions would not have sufficient records of international undergraduate
enrollment to establish a high-quality time series model. Instead of tracking back 40–50
years of international enrollment data, introducing seasonality into the model allows
institutional researchers to conduct a robust time series analysis by analyzing 15–20 years
of the enrollment data.
Figure 4. Diagnostic tests of the finalmodel.
Figure 5. Normality of the final model (normal QQ plot).
In addition, the final forecasting model includes several critical predictors (or
input variables) of international undergraduate enrollment. First, two input variables
represented visa policy changes that were critical to international students’ decision-
making regarding studying abroad. For example, a dramatic drop in H-1B issuance
and its subsequent influences significantly predicted the international undergraduate
enrollment. This finding was consistent with previous economic studies (Kato & Sparber,
2013; Shih, 2016). It also confirmed that enhancing career and life opportunities is
an important reason for studying abroad (Borjas, 2002; Chang et al., 2014). Many
Figure 6. Comparing the prediction and actual enrollment.
Blue crosses indicate the actual enrollment data from Fall 2014 to Fall 2016. Blue lines demonstrate
prediction intervals.
international students come to the United States because they would like to explore
career opportunities in the U.S. workforce in addition to receiving a high-quality higher
education credential. It should be noted that international students do not receive an
H-1B visa (or a working permit) unconditionally. In fact, most must graduate with a
valid postsecondary degree and be sponsored by a U.S. employer before applying for an
H-1B visa. Moreover, the number of H-1B visas are capped by country. A prospective
international student may hear stories from previous international students about the
waiting time and complexity of acquiring a working visa related to his/her country. This is a
clear indicator of the difficulty to work legally and eventually obtain a permanent residency
in the United States. Therefore, for those who value working opportunities, postgraduate
training, and potential immigration opportunities, changes of the U.S. working visa policy
may alter international students’ decision of study abroad destination.
Furthermore, it was unexpected that the post-9/11 student visa policy would not be
a significant predictor. This finding might be contradictory to previous studies that
highlighted the impact of delaying student visa application after 9/11 (Alberts, 2007; Urias
& Yeakey, 2009; Walfish, 2002). One explanation may be that the impact of student visa
policy changes was only valid for a few years immediately after 9/11. Subsequently, there
remained only a limited influence on international enrollment. However, it should be
noted that post-9/11 student visa policy remained stringent to international students
majoring in certain Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields. For those
STEM majors, post-9/11 student visa policy may continue to play a significant role in
predicting future international enrollment.
Second, we initially included two economic indicators—tuition, and local unemploy-
ment rates—that reflect the costs and benefits of studying in the United States. These
indicators were found significant in predicting domestic student enrollment (Chen, 2008).
However, the local unemployment rate was not a significant predictor, and the tuition
rates only had a minimal impact on international undergraduate enrollment. In the final
model, we decided to retain tuition rate but eliminate local unemployment rate. Besides
the consideration of statistical significance in the regression analysis, we also recognize
that international students may be less bounded to a certain location in the United States
when entering the job market. For example, states such as California, New York, and Texas
are perceived to have more job opportunities and a better working environment for inter-
national workers (Jagwani, 2014). These states may attract international students from
other states. As such, international students may be less sensitive to the local economic
indicators; rather, their decision-making of attending a particular college/university in the
United States may be dependent on economic indicators within a specific major. On the
other hand, we believe that tuition rate plays a significant role in international students’
decision-making (Bohman, 2009; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). The small magnitude of influ-
ence might be due to the data availability of this study. In particular, we had to calcu-
late tuition data by semester in order to reasonably add it into our seasonal forecasting
model. We had limited flexibility of reflecting the diversity of the summer tuition across
majors and years. We highly recommend future research to continue analyzing the effects
of tuition changes and explore alternative solutions in terms of tuition calculation.
Third, the rapid rise of Chinese undergraduate enrollment had a critical influence on
the international undergraduate enrollment at Midwest University. China has been the
top origin country for international undergraduates since 2009/10 (IIE, 2017b). There is
no doubt that this national trend played a significant role at Midwest University. This
finding called the attention to institutional agents, especially to those who work directly
with international students, in terms of understanding the characteristics and needs of
Chinese undergraduates to better serve them.
Limitations
There are several limitations worthy of mention. First, this study focused on predicting
international undergraduate enrollment at Midwest University. Results of this study may
only be helpful to those institutions that share similarities with Midwest University (i.e.,
large, 4-year, research-intensive, land-grant public university with predominantly White
students). Nevertheless, we believe the process of identifying the best forecasting model
can serve as a guide to all higher education institutions for building their own forecasting
model.
Further, several input variables were not originally in a seasonal format (i.e., by
semester). As a result, we had to change the format of variables through additional
calculation and recoding as well as using alternative variables. For example, it would be
ideal if we could have had seasonal enrollment statistics (or, enrollment data by semester)
of Chinese undergraduates. However, nationality breakdowns of international enrollment
were only available for the academic year at Midwest University. Thus, we had to dummy
code this variable to reflect the effect of the rapid increase of Chinese undergraduates
since Fall 2007. We believe that the model fit might be further improved if Chinese
undergraduate enrollment by semester could be obtained. The same rationale also applied
to the variable representing H-1B policy changes. It was impossible to add H-1B influences
by semester since the issuance of H-1B visas were calculated on a yearly basis. Thus, we
added a dummy-coded variable that described the impact of the rapid decrease of H-1B
issuance since 2003. In addition, the model cannot predict political upheaval, changes
in government policy, natural or unnatural disaster, or terrorism that will likely affect visa
policy.
Finally, we were not able to include some potential confounding variables in the
statistical analysis. For example, it would have been ideal if we could have distinguished
international transfer students from first-time international freshmen. Possibly, previous
experiences in a U.S. higher education institution can influence international students’
decision-making regarding transfer into another university/college. Similarly, it was
uncertain if the international admission policy at Midwest University has changed during
the period of Fall 1999 to Spring 2014.
Implications
Implications for Policy and Practice
Findings of this study indicate policy implications for student visas, working visa/permits,
and immigration processes. This study inferred that the negative impact of post-9/11
student visa policy on overall international undergraduate enrollment is fading. However,
the uncertainty of H-1B visa policy changes may continue to impact international
enrollment. International students might be future high-skill immigrants. Previous
studies showed that the odds of international students receiving a green card were 6 times
larger than those receiving a green card through a lottery system (Borjas, 2002). The
current H-1B process may contribute to an image of the United States as a less than a
welcoming working place for potential immigrants with postsecondary degrees. At the
same time, the home countries of these potential immigrants, such as China, India, and
South Korea (the top three countries of origins among international students), have been
developing, expanding, and improving their own higher education and workforce. It is
in the national interest to attract and retain young international talents, especially those
within STEM fields, to study and work in the United States in order to sustain a leadership
role in the competitive global economy. One starting point of the policy reform might be
extending student and working visas as well as expediting residence application processes
for temporary international workers with STEM degrees.
Further, this study focused on international undergraduate enrollment at the
institutional level. This can help a higher education institution to plan financially
and strategically in order to accommodate the growth of international undergraduate
enrollment. Specifically, leaders and practitioners in enrollment and international student
offices may apply our model to forecast future international enrollment in subsequent
semesters. Although this study was restricted to one 4-year, research-intensive university
located in the Midwest, higher education institutions across the nation may find our
procedures useful in building their own forecasting model.
Lastly, higher education leaders and practitioners should be aware of the limitations
of our forecasting model. In particular, our model might not be able to capture certain
policy changes such as the travel ban in 2017. Thus, leaders and practitioners should
consider additional strategies (e.g., conduct environment scanning on a regular basis) for
anticipating unexpected changes.
Implications for Future Research

This study is the first exploratory step of forecasting international undergraduate student
enrollment. We were limited by the availability of the data as well as other restrictions
(see discussion in the limitation section). However, the limitations indicate directions
for future studies. For example, we recommend future research to add more input
variables to the forecasting model. Potential input variables may include local living
cost, local/campus safety indicators, international diversity of the campus, etc. Also, we
encourage future studies to consider the impact of origin countries. To be specific, it
will be beneficial to build and test a forecasting model for international students from a
certain foreign country. In such models, we can consider the impacts of additional input
variables such as home country higher education accessibility, currency exchange rates
between the United States and the home country, home country job market indicators,
etc. Besides origin countries, international students’ enrollment patterns can differ based
on whether they are first-time freshmen or transfer students. We encourage future
studies to distinguish these two groups and develop specific enrollment models for them
respectively.
In addition, it will be beneficial to consider the impact of institutional characteristics
(e.g., location, public/private, selectivity/reputation, featured program/majors, etc.). Such
an approach may involve data collection from multiple institutions. Some potential
research questions might include the following: Does the prediction model vary for
public and private institutions? Rural institutions versus urban and suburban institutions?
Does international enrollment grow faster at historically high international-enrollment
institutions? Does the level of selectivity and reputation significantly impact international
enrollment?
Finally, the utilization of the time series analysis offered an alternative way to forecast
the enrollment trends for other student groups. For instance, future research on
enrollment trend by student’s major, demographics, and other factors (e.g., in-state/out-
state, transfer students from community colleges, etc.) may be warranted.
References
Alberts, H. C. (2007). Beyond the headlines: Changing patterns. in international student
enrollment in the United State. GeoJournal, 68(2–3.
Bass, M. (2006). Student of migration: Indian overseas students and the question of
permanent residency. People and Place, 14(1), 8–23.
Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special
reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY.
Bennett, B. (1993). The demand of the higher education: A cost/benefit analysis of the
human capital theory. Honors Projects.
Bohman, E. (2009). Headed for heartland: Decision-making process of community college

bound international students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34,
64–77.
Borjas, G. J. (2002). An evaluation of the foreign student program.
Box, G. E. P. & Jenkins, G. M. (1970). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. Francisco:
Holden-Day, San.
Box, G. E. P. & Tiao, G. C. (1975). Intervention analysis with applications to economic and
environmental problems. Journal of American Statistics Association, 70, 70–79.
Catsiapis, G. (1987). A model of educational investment decisions. Review of Economic
and Statistics, 69(10), 33–41.
Chang, L., Schulman, P., & Lu, Z. (2014). Bridging the digital divide: Segmenting and
recruiting international millennial students. WES Research & Advisory Services Research.
Chen, C. (2008). An integrated enrollment forecast model. IR Applications, 15.
Choudaha, R., Orosz, K., & Chang, L. (2012). the same: Understanding segments, mapping
behavior. WES Research & Advisory Services Research.
Department, U. S. S. (0). Immigrant visa statistics.
Gomes, L. & Murphy, J. (2003). An exploratory study of marketing international education
online. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 116–125.
Hussar, W. J. & Bailey, T. M. (2016). Projections of education statistics to 2024. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Jagwani, V. (2014). Four ways international students can explore job opportunities.
Kato, T. & Sparber, C. (2013). Quotas and quality: The effect of H-1B visa restrictions on the
pool of prospective undergraduate students from abroad. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 95(1), 109–126.
Koopmans, M. (2011). Time series in education: The analysis of daily attendance in two
high schools. New Orleans, LA.
Layzell, D. T. (1997). The future is now: Limitations of the Crystal Ball and other lessons
learned. New Directions for Institutional. Research, 93, 95–99.
Ljung, G. M. & Box, G. E. P. (1978). On a measure of a lack of fit in time series models.
Biometrika, 65, 297–303.
Mazzarol, T. & Soutar, G. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student
destination choice. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–
90.
Meeker, W. Q. (2001). Graphical tools for exploring and analyzing data from ARIMA time
series models.
Pimpa, N. (2004). The relationships between Thai students’ choices of international
education and their families. International Education Journal, 5(3), 352–359.
Prest, A. & Turvey, R. (1965). Cost-benefit analysis: A survey. The Economic Journal,
75(300), 683–735.
Redden, E. (2017). New international enrollments decline. Inside Higher.
Shih, K. (2016). Labor market openness, H-1B visa policy, and the scale of international
student enrollment in the United States. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 121–138.
University, M. (2017). Fall semester 2017 enrollment undergraduates.
Urias, D. & Yeakey, C. C. (2009). Analysis of the U.S. student visa system misperceptions,
barriers, and consequences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(1), 72–109.
Vandaele, W. (1983). Applied time series and Box-Jenkins models. Academic Press, New
York, NY.
Walfish, D. (2002). Student visas and the illogic of the intent requirement. Georgetown
Immigration Law Journal, 17, 473.
Wei, W. S. (1994). Time series analysis. City, Redwood.
Author biography
Yu April Chen is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education, College of Human

Science and Education, Louisiana State University. Her major research interests include
international students, community college student success, STEM pathways, and data-
driven decision making.
Ran Li is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Education, Iowa State University.
His major research interests lie in the areas of international education, shadow education
(private tutoring), and community colleges.
Linda Serra Hagedorn is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education in the School of

Education at Iowa State University. She is a prominent researcher in international
education as well as the area of community college success.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 262–281
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.260
ojed.org/jis
Institutional Satisfaction and

Recommendation: What Really Matters
to International Students?
Ravichandran Ammigana
Abstract: This quantitative study investigates the role of satisfaction variables as predictors of
institutional recommendation for over 45,000 international students at 96 different institutions
globally. Using data from the International Student Barometer, it demonstrates which aspects of the
university experience are most significant on students’ propensity to recommend their institution to
prospective applicants. This article also discusses key implications and policy recommendations for
how university administrators and international educators could enhance the international student
experience and strengthen recruitment and retention strategies on their respective campuses.
Keywords: international students, international student experience, student recommen-

dation, student satisfaction
Introduction
In an increasingly competitive global market, it is vital that institutions remain attentive to
the views, perceptions, preferences, and experiences of international students, particularly
in terms of improving satisfaction ratings and institutional recommendation. The decision
to select a destination country or institution is generally influenced by a number of
“push and pull” factors that drive international students to leave their home countries to
pursue an education abroad (Banjong & Olson, 2016). These determinants include the
quality of education, tuition and living costs, scholarship opportunities, post-graduation
employment options, health and safety, and learning a different language such as English,
which is common in destination countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Australia. To that extent, some institutions and countries have strengthened their strategic
approach to international recruitment as they become more aware of the importance of
meeting prospective students’ expectations about their institutional experience (Verbik &
Lasanowski, 2007).
a University of Delaware.
Corresponding author: rammigan@udel.edu

Institutional Satisfaction and Recommendation 263
Over the past few years, however, many institutions have prioritized the recruitment
of international students as a source of revenue due to financial pressures (Choudaha &
Hu, 2016). In some countries, budgetary cuts and government restrictions for publicly
funded institutions have increased the competition for recruiting international students
who are self-funded (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013). For those countries, the ability to
retain their market share is unclear due to increased competition and pressure from
emerging destination countries with pro-immigration programs, better job placement
opportunities, and softer visa policies. Institutions have therefore turned to more
aggressive international student recruitment strategies to make up costs and meet their
financial goals.
International students can significantly contribute to higher education, not only finan-
cially but also culturally in terms of facilitating the development of intercultural compe-
tencies among all students and positively impacting the institution’s internationalization
efforts (Urban & Palmer, 2014). Fostering meaningful engagement of international stu-
dents with the rest of the university community, integrating intercultural perspectives into
classrooms, and encouraging domestic students to operate in multicultural groups and
teams can enhance the student experience and complement institutional recruitment and
retention strategies (Urban & Palmer, 2014). Besides the social and cultural contributions
that international students make to their institutions, they also help create jobs and add
invaluable scientific innovation and technological improvements to the local community
(Academic Credentials Evaluation Institute, 2017).
While internationalization is often measured by the recruitment and enrollment of
international students, many institutions fail to fully integrate and engage these students
with the larger university community after they have been admitted and registered
on campus (Spencer-Oatey, 2018). Facilitating engagement and interactions between
international and domestic students can enhance the academic, social, and cultural
experience for all students. Thus, university educators and administrators must be
informed of the relevant implications and policy recommendations so that adequate
curricular and extracurricular resources and support services are administered to improve
the experience of all students.
Stemming from an article by Ammigan and Jones (2018), this study evaluates the rela-
tionship between international student satisfaction and institutional recommendation. It
supports the argument that the international student experience can be a driver for insti-
tutional recruitment and retention, and for advancing campus diversity and internation-
alization efforts. Having international students on campus can also serve as an indicator
for developing global and intercultural competence of domestic students, faculty, and staff
via interactions in the classroom and engagement in other extracurricular settings. How-
ever, for these benefits to exist, institutions must be strategic in incorporating the student
experience perspective at all levels of their operations, such as their service mission, fac-
ulty engagement, organizational leadership structure, and assessment priorities, so that
adequate support services and interventions can be implemented to sustain such initia-
tives.
264 Ammigan
Literature Review
International Students
According to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation Institute
for Statistics (n.d.), internationally mobile students are students who have crossed a
national or territorial border for the purpose of education and are now enrolled outside
their country of origin. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(2015) expands this definition by suggesting that international students are those who are
admitted by a country other than their own country of citizenship, usually under special
permits or visas, for the specific educational purpose of following a particular course of
study at a postsecondary institution of the receiving country. This study focuses on the
experience of over 45,000 undergraduate, degree-seeking international students enrolled
at institutions in Australia, the UK, and the US.
The United States

The number of international students in the US grew from 723,277 in 2010 to 1,078,822
in 2016, indicating an increase of 49% in enrollment over just 6 years. International
students contributed a total of US$36.9 billion and supported more than 450,000 jobs
in the local economy during the 2016–2017 academic year (NAFSA: Association of
International Educators, 2017). Having said that, U.S. institutions enrolled 31,520 fewer
new international students in 2017 over the previous year, indicating a potential loss of
US$788 million in revenue for just the first year of studies. International students are
critical to the competitiveness of American higher education as they can add diverse
perspectives that enrich in-classroom and on-campus experiences for all students and
can contribute to advancing research, economic development, and innovation in the
global economy (Choudaha, 2018). However, “the recent political turmoil which began
with the Presidential elections accelerated several changes which in turn are hurting
the competitiveness of U.S. higher education institutions in attracting global talent,
reputation, and resources” (Choudaha, 2018).
In 2017, over 45% of institutions of higher education in the US reported declines
in the enrollment of new international students, citing the social and political climate,
visa difficulties, cost of U.S. higher education, and the global competition for talent as
contributing factors to this shift in numbers (Baer, 2017). While the US remains the
top destination market for international students, the ability of institutions to retain
their market share is unclear due to increased competition and pressure from emerging
destination markets with less complex visa policies and better employment opportunities.
The United Kingdom

With the UK attracting more students from overseas than any other country besides
the US, international student mobility continues to be an important initiative in
the government’s effort to foster engagement in higher education. While there is
usually a strong focus on welcoming and teaching international students on university
campuses, Ilieva, Killingley, Tsiligiris, and Peak (2016) argued that less attention is often
geared towards the quality of education provision and assessment for these students.
International students contributed £20 billion to the UK economy in 2017, making their
spending a major factor in supporting local economies in addition to the tuition fees that
they pay (The Higher Education Policy Institute, 2018).
The United Kingdom’s vote in the referendum to leave the European Union in 2016
brought about a few challenges for British institutions. Immediately after the vote, there
was a rapid decline of around 41,000 international students choosing to study in the
UK (Office for National Statistics, n.d.). International educators in the UK suggest that
the perceptions amongst potential international students had worsened over the past 12
months, and that government policy has had a direct negative impact on their ability
to recruit international students (Hobsons, 2016). They also believe that restrictions on
post-graduation employment visas, for example, had an adverse effect on international
student recruitment efforts. With the level of uncertainty surrounding the impact of
visa regulations, tuition fees, and employment on international student enrollment,
institutions in the UK must continue to focus their attention and commitment on
providing a welcoming environment and improving the experience of their students on
campus.
Australia
A primary component of higher education in Australia is the cultural diversity of the
student population on campus, which presents opportunities for both international
and domestic students to interact with peers from different cultural, social, and
linguistic backgrounds (Arkoudis et al., 2013). According to the Australian Government’s
Department of Education and Training (2017), there was a 13% increase in international
student enrollment from the previous year, revealing the largest increase recorded in a
single year. With these unprecedented numbers, international students now make up
more than a quarter of all students at certain universities. A recent analysis by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed that the international student sector generated
about AUS$28.6 billion in 2017, including tuition fees and living expenses, making it the
country’s third-largest export behind iron ore and coal (ICEF Monitor, 2017). Economists
have credited the boom to the strong reputation of Australian universities, along with a
slightly weaker currency and the proximity to Asia. Others have suggested that it may
be related to concerns about changes in immigration and visa policies currently affecting
other countries.
However, according to the Regional Universities Network, the Australian government’s
recent budget cut and domestic funding freeze could significantly impact future student
enrollment at universities and, in turn, increase competition for international students
(Crace, 2018). With lower enrollments of domestic students, many Australian universities
might turn to even more aggressive international student recruitment strategies to make
up costs and meet their financial goals. Through a series of collaborative programs led
by the Australian Education International (2012), universities continue to explore ways to
enhance orientation programs, increase awareness of support services, and gain a better
understanding of how to address the needs of international students.
266 Ammigan
International Student Satisfaction

Student satisfaction is the student assessment of services provided by universities and
colleges, which includes the quality of teaching and academic services, support facilities,
physical infrastructure, and the social climate on campus (Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker,
& Grøgaard, 2002, p. 185). Satisfaction ratings provide institutions with a sense of
what students are experiencing in the various university settings and environments.
An important strategic priority at many institutions of higher education has been to
improve student satisfaction and experience, which is seen as a critical recruitment and
retention strategy for providing a high-quality education and remaining competitive in
the global student market and world rankings (Baranova, Morrison, & Mutton, 2011; Shah
& Richardson, 2016).
In recent years, there has been a growing interest from international educators to gather
and utilize international student satisfaction data as a way to influence campus change
and strengthen support services for this community. Just like at the national level, where
governments are assessing their quality assurance policies with regards to meeting the
needs of international students, host institutions are using student feedback, obtained
via benchmarking instruments, as an indicator of educational quality and a measure to
improve services that lead to student success (Shah & Richardson, 2016). Institutions that
admit international students cannot expect these students to adjust to their new campus
and be successful without adequate levels of support, advising, and programming services
(Andrade, 2006).
A recent study by Ammigan and Jones (2018), which also uses International Student
Barometer (ISB) data, found that the arrival, learning, living, and support services
dimensions of the international student experience had significant impact on their
overall university satisfaction. Of those four dimensions, the learning experience was
the most influential. Students also indicated that their first night stay, the quality of
accommodation, the quality of lectures, and services provided by their International Office
were the most significant satisfaction variables within each dimension of experience.
Arrival Experience
Leaving family and friends back home to study in a foreign country can be an exhausting
experience. International students are often nervous to take on this long journey that
usually involves challenges such as obtaining a student visa, speaking English, finding
accommodation, managing the cost of living, meeting new people, fitting into a new
environment, and adjusting to a new classroom culture (Brett, 2013). The experience of
arrival to campus can therefore be critical for new international students to get started
on a positive note and navigate all the remaining challenges that await them. Universities
must be intentional in setting up adequate support services, such as orientation programs,
airport pick up, and social activities, that can ease the transition to campus and meet the
expectations of incoming students.
Preparing international students on what to expect even before they reach their
university can help them transition smoothly and settle quickly into their new
environment. “Sensitization” to campus resources early upon arrival can be very
important in reducing challenges faced by students—by assisting them in adapting

to campus and by providing support for improving their academic performance
(Banjong, 2015). Pre-arrival information and guidance on the visa application process,
transportation, housing, health insurance, class registration, and other key issues can be
made readily accessible in students’ admissions packets and through existing online and
social media platforms.
Learning Experience
Integrating international students in the classroom through quality education and
teaching expertise has become a priority at many institutions (Hellsten & Prescott, 2004).
Evidence suggests that international students are generally more academically engaged
in their first year than domestic students, and at the same time, shows that faculty
assumptions about international student behavior in the classroom are often incorrect
(Andrade, 2006). The classroom culture, which includes interstudent interactions
such as group work and participation, level of formality or informality required when
communicating with faculty, and other language and communication barriers, is one
of the biggest challenges faced by international students (Sarkodie-Mensah, 1998). It is
therefore important for institutions to actively assess and address the different types and
levels of support required by international students in their academic environment.
Shah and Richardson (2016) found that an increased focus on course design,
curriculum content and learning resources, teaching methods, student placements or
practicums, engagement with staff, technology, and assessments were key factors in
supporting the international student learning experience. Hellsten and Prescott (2004)
suggested that an inclusive teaching philosophy is essential in serving the academic needs
of international students in the classroom. This is coupled with the need to increase
cultural awareness in pedagogy and teaching methods, as well as the necessity to create
opportunities for discussions between international students and faculty or academic staff
in university learning settings. Montgomery (2010) suggested through a constructivist
approach that, while the many influences on the international student experience are
complex in nature, the social context of learning can improve the quality of learning
experiences. The skills and competencies that students develop as a result of their learning
experiences in a new social and academic environment can help them become global
citizens. A supportive campus network and community of international students can
serve as a basis for developing meaningful cross-cultural experiences for everyone at that
institution.
Living Experience
While the benefits of moving to another country to study are abundant academically,
culturally, and socially, it can also prove to be a very expensive option for many students.
It is therefore not surprising that international students and their families have high hopes
and expectations when it comes to the living environment that institutions provide for
students, including affordable housing, transportation options, dining services, safety and
security, internet and technology, and opportunities to meet other students locally (Brett,
2013).
268 Ammigan
Life outside the classroom can be a critical aspect of any international student’s
experience on campus. Culture shock, social isolation, expectations from family
and home, cross-cultural relationships, financial difficulties, immigration regulations,
housing, and employment options are examples of issues that can lead to added stress,
anxiety, and depression (Sarkodie-Mensah, 1998). Arthur (2017) suggested two important
factors that can assist international students with their social adjustment and transition to
campus and at the same time reduce loneliness and homesickness: (1) the availability of
counselors to discuss issues surrounding perceived intercultural adjustment and culture
shock, networking skills, navigating relationships, and peer support, (2) the opportunity
to establish friendships and foster cross-cultural engagement with local students through
volunteer and student leadership programs, registered student organizations, and social
activities in residential halls and other locations on campus.
Support Services Experience

Besides the classroom experience, international students also have expectations about
how campus life will add value to their university experience. The support provided
outside of the academic setting, such as tutoring, study skills, careers advice, counseling
services, library resources, and physical space for learning, can be equally important to
maintain academic satisfaction and success on campus (Sarkodie-Mensah, 1998). Roberts
and Dunworth (2012) argued that student support services can contribute directly to
international student satisfaction and that service providers must be more aligned with
students’ expectations and needs if they are to increase satisfaction levels. The authors
found that, while support services may be abundant and welcomed, international students
were not always aware of the full range of services offered and did not understand what the
services were specifically for or how to access them.
Hanassab and Tidwell’s (2002) supported the argument that international students
can have a significant impact at institutions of higher education and that it is critical to
regularly access students’ experiences. Because of the unique needs often experienced
by new international students, such as financial stability, adapting to local customs,
establishing a network of support, and overcoming language barriers, university support
services must be equipped to address emotional or psychological concerns possibly
caused by adjustment issues. The authors reiterated the importance for institutions
to develop adequate support services and to have a sufficient amount of expertise and
staffing to handle new challenges faced by this community.
Institutional Choice and Recommendation

The concept of institutional recommendation is closely related to satisfaction in the
sense that satisfied students are more likely to recommend their institution to future
students (Mavondo, Tsarenko, & Gabbott, 2004). There is also a higher probability
that these students would return to enroll in higher degrees, become valued alumni,
and offer job placement opportunities to current students. The decision of prospective
international students to select an institution is based on a number of factors, such as
institutional reputation, safety and security, university environment, quality of life, and
visa requirements. However, the recommendation from family, friends, and acquaintances
can be one of the most influential motives in their decision-making process (Mavondo,
Tsarenko, & Gabbott, 2004).
Cubillo, Sánchez, and Cerviño (2006) proposed five main factors that can influence
prospective international students’ institutional choice: (1) personal factors including
career prospects, making international contacts, improving language skills, and recom-
mendation from family, friends and professors; (2) the host country’s image including cost
of living, visa procedures, social aspects, and opportunities to work; (3) the reputation of
the city, such as safety and security, social facilities, and the local environment; (4) the
status of the institution in terms of ranking, campus atmosphere, research opportunities,
experience and expertise of faculty, quality of education, and academic resources; and
(5) the evaluation of the program of study, including tuition cost, variety and quality of
courses, and recognition by future employers.
Brett (2013) found that teaching quality, personal safety, and the perceived reputation
of the institution and education system were the most important factors influencing
students’ decisions on where to study. Other factors include university websites and
an informal network of friends, parents, current students, and alumni. In addition, a
recent report showed that course offerings were the main driver of student decisions on
institution and location, with the expectation that the chosen course of study would lead
to career prospects (QS Enrolment Solutions, 2018). Reviews and marketing materials
showcasing the quality of teaching and the experience of academic staff was the second
most influential factor in choosing an institution. The report also showed that prospective
students were most concerned about the cost of living and the ability to afford the tuition
fees. Having a relative or friend in a destination country and receiving information
about local culture and customs can help reduce concerns and worries about going
to study abroad and impact students’ choice of a particular location. Campus safety
and a welcoming environment were also important factors in international students’
institutional and destination choice.
A survey-based study by Nicholls (2018) demonstrated that international students
appear to first choose the country and institution in which they want to study, rather than
the actual location of the university within that country. Also important to the respondents
in this study was the quality of education, the reputation and ranking of the institution and
academic department, safety and security, and the cost and affordability of the program of
study. Alfattal (2017) found that the factors influencing students’ choice of an institution
as their study destination varied between international and local students. Seven choice
factors were identified as driving preference differently for international students than for
domestic students, namely on-campus housing, recommendation from family, academic
reputation, the reputation of faculty, participation in college sports, printed material or
video, and need-based financial support.
Method
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between international student
satisfaction and institutional recommendation. Precisely, it examines associations
between different aspects of the arrival, learning, living, and support service environments
270 Ammigan
and students’ prospect of recommending their current institution to future applicants.

Using multiple linear regression analyses, 80 satisfaction variables were regressed against
institutional recommendation as the main dependent variable in this study.
Instrument
The ISB was used in this study to measure the degree of satisfaction and recommendation
of international students. The instrument, which is considered the most widely used
benchmarking tool for tracking the international student experience globally, consists of
256 close- and open-ended questions. Since its inception in 2005, the ISB has gathered
feedback from more than 3 million students in over 1,400 institutions across 33 different
countries (i-graduate, n.d.). It has been periodically tested for validity and reliability
and refined over 14 cycles as the industry standard for measuring international student
satisfaction (Brett, 2013). The online survey, administered by i-graduate, uses a 4-point
Likert scale to measure satisfaction, where 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = satisfied,
and 4 = very satisfied, and a 5-point Likert scale for institutional recommendation, where
1 = actively discourage, 2 = discourage, 3 = neither encourage or discourage, 4 = encourage,
and 5 = actively encourage. Satisfaction items were organized in four main sections: (1) the
arrival section (11 variables), which assessed students’ first impressions and experiences
upon arrival to campus, (2) the learning section (27 variables), which explored students’
academic environment and the aspects of teaching, studies, and facilities, (3) the living
section (24 variables), comprised of questions around student accommodation, social,
and day-to-day life experiences, and (4) the support services section (17 variables), which
focused on services provided by university departments, such as the international office,
finance department, career services, health and counseling centers, and campus eating
options. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the arrival (Æ = .91), living (Æ =
.96), learning (Æ = .96), and support services (Æ = .98) variables indicated a high level of
internal consistency of the satisfaction scales.
Participants
There were 45,701 international undergraduate students from 96 institutions in Australia,
the UK, and the US in this study. Over 46% of student respondents (n = 21,443) were
from the UK, 46.2% (n = 21,117) were from Australia, and 6.9% (n = 3,141) were from the
US. Students held 204 different nationalities from countries, nation-states, and sovereign
territories around the world, with 18.5% from China, 8.4% from Malaysia, and 4.1% from
US. Approximately 90% of all participants were 25 years old or younger; 58.1% were female,
41.8% were male, and 0.1% identified themselves as transgender female-to-male, non-
binary/gender fluid/genderqueer, or indeterminate/intersex/unspecified. International
students in this study represented 23 different disciplines at the time they took the survey.
A majority of them were studying business and administrative studies (22.5%). Over 37%
of respondents stated that they were studying in a year other than their first or last year.
Procedure
Respondents were invited by email to complete the online ISB survey in the fall
2016 semester. De-identified responses were made available by i-graduate to ensure
confidentiality of the information. The author used IBM’s SPSS software to run inferential
analyses on the pre-existing data. Institutional Review Board approval for research on
human subjects was granted by the University of Delaware for this study.
Findings
Institutional Satisfaction and Recommendation
A multiple linear regression model tested whether international students’ satisfaction with
their overall institutional experience, as well as with each dimension of experience (arrival,
learning, living, and support services), influenced institutional recommendation. The
analysis indicated that each of the four independent variables were statistically significant
on the dependent variable (p < .001, t > 1.96; see Table 1). It was found that international
students’ overall satisfaction with their institution (Ø = .197, p < .001) positively influenced
their recommendation to future applicants. Of the four dimensions of experience, “overall
satisfaction with learning” impacted recommendation the most (Ø = .233, p < .001),
followed by “overall satisfaction with support services” (Ø = .126, p < .001), and “overall
satisfaction with arrival” (Ø = .124, p < .001). “Overall satisfaction with living” (Ø = .109,
p < .001) had the least influence on student recommendation.
Table 1. Impact of overall satisfaction on institutional recommendation
Satisfaction variables Ø t
Overall satisfaction with institution* 0.197 19.733
Overall satisfaction with arrival* 0.124 11.261
Overall satisfaction with learning* 0.233 20.281
Overall satisfaction with living* 0.109 10.039
Overall satisfaction with support services* 0.126 9.941
Note. *p < .001.
Satisfaction Variables and Recommendation

Table 2 shows the predictive value of the various aspects of student satisfaction in each
dimension of experience on students’ institutional recommendation. The arrival variables
that impacted institutional recommendation were the “accommodation office” (Ø = .184,
p < .05) and “social activities” (Ø = .129, p < .05). There were a number of learning
variables that were significant on recommendation, namely “studying with people across
cultures” (Ø = .068, p < .001), “organization of course” (Ø = .069, p < .001), “leading
to a good job” (Ø = .064, p < .001), and “opportunities for work experience” (Ø = .052,
p < .001). “Academic staff command of English” (Ø = °.051, p < .001) was found to
negatively influence institutional recommendation for international students. The most
272 Ammigan
significant variables of the living dimension were “making friends with others from this
country” (Ø = .124, p < .001), “networking” (Ø = .089, p < .001), and “quality of external
campus environment” (Ø=.097, p<.001). No Support Services variables were found to be
significant on institutional recommendation.
Table 2. Impact of satisfaction variables on institutional recommendation
Arrival variables
Accommodation office** 0.184 3.242
Social activities** 0.129 2.143
Learning variables
Studying with people across cultures* 0.06 4.812
Organization of course* 0.069 4.627
Leading to a good job* 0.064 4.229
Opportunities for work experience* 0.052 4.037
Teaching ability of lecturers* 0.062 3.888
Academic content* 0.061 3.874
Quality of lectures* 0.061 3.700
Career guidance from academic staff** 0.036 2.526
Access to academic staff** 0.037 2.524
Improve my English language skills** 0.037 2.488
Physical library facilities** 0.037 2.451
Academic staff command of English* -0.051 -3.91
Living variables
Making friends from this country* 0.124 6.392
Networking* 0.089 4.086
Quality of the external campus environment* 0.097 3.616
Immigration and visa advice** 0.065 3.182
Transport links** 0.063 2.753
Availability of financial support** 0.043 2.414
Support Services variables
None __ __
Note. *p < .001; **p < .05.
Satisfaction Variables and Overall University Experience

While the previous findings looked at the satisfaction predictors for institutional
recommendation, this section used regression models to demonstrate which variables,
specific to the arrival, learning, living, and support service environments, predicted overall
institutional experience (see Table 3). Results indicate that only two arrival variables,
experience with the “finance department” (Ø = .137, p < .001) and “accommodation
office” (Ø = .01, p < .05), had significant impact on students’ overall satisfaction with their
institution. Some of the learning aspects of satisfaction that had significant impact on
students’ overall institutional satisfaction were “quality of lectures” (Ø = .085, p < .001),
“expertise of lecturers” (Ø = .074, p < .001), “studying with people from other cultures” (Ø
= .053, p < .001), and “organization of course” (Ø = .055, p < .001). The living variables with
the most significant influence on students’ overall institutional satisfaction were found to
be “access to suitable accommodation” (Ø = .074, p < .001), “quality of external campus
environment” (Ø = .066, p < .05), and “experience local culture” (Ø = .005, p < .05).
“Cost of accommodation” (Ø = °.036, p < .05) was negatively associated with the overall
institutional experience of international students. Understandably so, as costs went up,
satisfaction would go down. Similar to the findings for institutional recommendation, no
support services variables were found to influence institutional satisfaction.
Table 3. Impact of satisfaction variables and overall experience
Arrival variables
Finance department* 1.137 2.173
Accommodation office** 0.1 1.702
Learning variables
Quality of lectures* 0.085 6.934
Expertise of lecturers* 0.074 5.847
Studying with people from other cultures* 0.053 4.978
Organization of course* 0.055 4.878
Academic content* 0.05 4.191
Leading to a good job* 0.046 4.001
Improve English language skills** 0.026 2.35
Access to academic staff** 0.026 2.307
Physical library facilities** 0.023 2.069
Living variables
Access to suitable accommodation* 0.074 4.225
Quality of external campus environment** 0.066 3.352
Experience local culture** 0.05 3.051
Cost of living** 0.04 2.734
Social facilities** 0.051 2.669
Eco-friendliness attitude** 0.039 2.121
Social activities** 0.038 2.071
Making friends from this country** 0.029 2.015
Cost of accommodation** °0.036 -2.603
Support Services variables
None __ __
274 Ammigan
Note. *p < .001; **p < .05.
Discussion
Factors Influencing Institutional Recommendation
Findings from this study clearly show that the overall institutional experience of
international students influence how they recommend their current university to future
applicants. There was a strong positive association between these two variables, indicating
that the more satisfied students were, the more likely they were to encourage future
applicants to apply to their institution. Results also revealed that each dimension
of satisfaction (arrival, learning, living, and support services) positively influenced
recommendation, suggesting that the experiences of international students within these
university environments were key in their recommendation to other students. The
learning experience, particularly with respect to curriculum design and teaching, was
found to be the most impactful, supporting studies by Shah and Richardson (2016) and
Hellsten and Prescott (2004).
When the different aspects of satisfaction were examined more closely (within
each dimension), several variables stood out in terms of their impact on institutional
recommendation. It is perhaps not surprising to find that students’ experiences with their
university’s accommodation office and their involvement in social activities were the most
significant of the arrival variables. New international students often find it challenging to
settle into their new residential environment and meet new people upon arrival to campus
(Brett, 2013).
From a learning perspective, international students indicated that a multicultural class-
room environment was the most important factor in their institutional recommendation
to others. The structure in which their program of study and course was organized, as well
as the opportunity to find employment, were also highly significant for recommendation.
This signals the importance of the classroom setting and course design to students, just as
much as the ability to find a good job after graduation. The academic staff command of
English was found to be negatively associated with institutional recommendation, which
could be an indication that students who are not native English speakers might struggle to
cope with advanced vocabulary and language used by staff.
Making friends with local students was the most influential living variable on
recommendation. This finding is not unexpected for the many institutions who are
actively establishing programs and support services to engage international students
on campus and help them develop friendships with domestic students (Arkoudis et al.,
2013; Montgomery, 2010). This study, however, validates the importance of this variable
from an institutional recommendation standpoint, which has potential implications for
administrators and recruitment professionals.
Another interesting finding revolved around support services for international
students. While no specific support variables significantly impacted recommendation,
overall experience with support services was found to positively influence this dependent
variable. This corresponds with the Ammigan and Jones’ (2018) study, which suggested
that institutions must consider placing greater emphasis on support services that enhance
student satisfaction in the academic setting, sustained by a collaborative service model

between academic departments and support units.
Satisfaction Versus Recommendation

Several variables within each dimension of experience were found to impact both
institutional recommendation and overall satisfaction for international students. Table
4 indicates which of these variables were common across both dependent variables,
stressing the importance of resources and support services around these aspects of
experience.
Table 4. Variables impacting both recommendation and overall satisfaction
Recommendation Overall Satisfaction

Satisfaction variables t Satisfaction variables t
Making friends (local)* 6.39 Quality of lectures* 6.93
Studying across cultures* 4.81 Expertise of lecturers 5.84
Organization of course* 4.62 Studying across cultures* 4.97
Leading to a good job* 4.22 Organization of course* 4.87
Networking 4.08 Suitable accommodation 4.22
Opportunities for work 4.03 Academic content* 4.19
Academic staff English °3.91 Leading to a good job* 4.00
Teaching ability of lecturers 3.88 Quality of external campus* 3.35
Academic content* 3.87 Experience local culture 3.05
Quality of lectures* 3.70 Cost of living 2.73
Quality of external campus* 3.61 Social facilities 2.66
Accommodation Office* 3.24 Cost of accommodation -2.60
Immigration/visa advice 3.18 Improve English skills* 2.35
Transport links 2.75 Access to academic staff* 2.30
Career guidance 2.52 Finance department 2.17
Access to academic staff* 2.52 Eco-friendliness attitude 2.12
Improve my English skills* 2.48 Social activities 2.07
Physical library* 2.45 Physical library* 2.06
Financial support 2.41 Making friends (local)* 2.01
Social activities 2.14 Accommodation Office* 1.70
Note. *Common variables across recommendation and overall satisfaction

There were 11 satisfaction variables that influenced both institutional recommendation
and overall satisfaction, namely academic content, access to academic staff, accommoda-
tion office, improve English language skills, leading to a good job, making friends from this
country, organization of course, physical library facilities, quality of external campus, qual-
ity of lectures, and studying with people from other cultures. While making friends from
this country was the most significant variable on institutional recommendation, quality of
276 Ammigan
lectures was most influential on overall satisfaction with the university. Studying with peo-
ple across cultures and the organization of course were highly influential on both depen-
dent variables.
Conversely, the unique predictors that influenced recommendation the most were
networking, opportunities for work, and academic staff command of English. Expertise of
lecturers, suitable accommodation, and experience local culture were the most significant
variables on overall satisfaction.
Implications for International Educators

The results of this study have strong recruitment and retention implications for a
number of departments and student service units across campus. Beyond working
collaboratively to ensure a positive experience for all students, it would be strategic,
for instance, for an institution’s admissions office to work closely with their support
units and alumni relations offices in identifying ways to include current international
students, registered student organizations, and alums in their recruitment efforts overseas.
In this context, it is important that institutions capitalize on their existing campus
support services and resources as they create strategic and collaborative engagement
opportunities, both in and out of the classroom. Staff from student affairs, residence life
and housing, dining services, the orientation office, career services, counseling centers,
transportation services, academic departments, etc., must work together to support the
positive experiences of students as well as the educational mission of the institution as a
global community.
Arrival
It is vital that new and incoming international students feel supported right from the
moment they get to campus with services such as airport pick up and transportation,
orientation programs, and other welcoming events. Assistance with first night
accommodation, setting up a bank account, and financial issues and inquiries can also be
key in students’ first impressions of their campus. Institutions must remain intentional at
creating a sense of belonging for international students through year-round programming
and outreach initiatives.
Preparing international students on what to expect before they even reach their
institution can also help them transition smoothly and settle quickly into their new
environment. Pre-arrival information on the visa application process, transportation,
housing, health insurance, class registration, and other key issues can be made readily
accessible in their admissions packets and through existing online and social media
platforms. It is also common for some institutions to host pre-departure orientation
programs overseas even before students travel to their university. Upon arrival to campus,
hybrid orientation programs with other student services units can further assist and guide
international students towards a positive and successful experience. Academic advisors
should be encouraged to discuss courses being offered in more detail, including class
size, organization, and level of difficulty, so that students can choose a more balanced
schedule prior to the start of their first semester. Working closely with academic services
throughout the semester to pinpoint common challenges and address them through
refined programming and initiatives can also serve as a proactive approach to supporting
students at the beginning of their studies.
Learning
The academic setting, in the form of in-class teaching, studies, and facilities, must remain
central to international students’ university experience. This includes the academic
and pedagogic quality of teaching, expertise of faculty and academic staff, physical
infrastructure of classrooms and labs, technology, academic support services, and the
social climate within the learning environment. From a marketing and recruitment
perspective, administrators must be aware of the impact that learning might have on
the propensity to recommend their institution to others and, in turn, be intentional
at showcasing relevant academic experiences, achievements, stories, and rankings to
prospective students.
With the increasing number of international students in classrooms, faculty and
academic staff must also be encouraged to design courses that are conducive for learners
across cultures and from different systems of education. This might include adjusting
teaching and communication methods to facilitate the academic relationship between
international students and faculty. There could also be an implication for how universities
recruit, train, and retain qualified faculty and teaching assistants that can promote the
quality of learning and academic success. Institutions must look at career planning and
development for international students not only as a subsidiary support service but also
with a focus on having it integrated into the curricular and classroom experience.
Living
This study confirms the need for institutions to develop opportunities for engagement
and involvement between international and domestic students. These initiatives must
accompany both curricular and extracurricular programs and occur in social settings
inside and outside of the classroom. In addition to meeting the needs of students, creating
global engagement programs such as weekly coffee hours, ice cream socials, leadership
and volunteer programs, film and book clubs, conversation partners, and buddy programs
can foster campus-wide collaborations in support of campus internationalization.
Another aspect of the living experience to point out is the accommodation for
international students. Particularly, receiving support from the accommodation office
and accessing suitable housing had a significant impact on students’ overall university
experience and recommendation. The cost of accommodation had a negative association
with overall satisfaction, which is perhaps an expected finding. While there are many
factors such as personal preferences and cost of living that could affect cost, it might be
tactful for institutions to be transparent about living expenses and ensure that incoming
students have a realistic expectation about accommodation costs right from the beginning
of their studies.
Making friends with students from other countries was found to be the most influential
living variable on institutional recommendation. It might therefore be worthwhile for
institutions to introduce initiatives, such as a buddy program, networking opportunities,
278 Ammigan
and social and cultural events, that can assist with student integration and engagement
upon arrival to campus.
Support Services
Students’ overall experience with their university’s support services significantly impacted
recommendation. This suggests the need for support offices to regularly assess student
needs and adjust services in order to meet their expectations and demands, ranging from
pre-arrival to graduation. Institutions must also remain strategic in how they develop and
host programs and services collaboratively with other campus units such as Residence
Life and Housing, Career Services, and the Counseling Center. With learning as the most
influential variable on institutional recommendation, it is essential that institutions put
greater emphasis on support services that enhance the academic experience and success
of international students.
International student support offices can vary in organizational structure and range of
services but most exist to provide assistance to international students in their educational
and cultural transition to campus. These types of services provided often include
orientation programs, immigration advising, assistance with academic and employment
issues, and social and cultural programming. Despite recent changes in immigration
policies and compliance standards, recurring safety and security concerns, and increased
political instability across nations worldwide, support offices have direct access to the
international community and can play an important role in furthering intercultural
engagement for all at the university.
However, a point of consideration for administrators is that all too often, staff in inter-
national student support offices have to devote the majority of their time to administer-
ing government regulations and maintaining compliance with visa requirements (Briggs
& Ammigan, 2017). University administrators must adequately provide resources to such
offices so they can lead programming initiatives that contribute to the broader campus
internationalization efforts of their institution.
Conclusions
In addition to the various implications discussed above, findings from this study offer a
few considerations to administrators and policy makers for adjusting or introducing new
institutional strategies, practices, and interventions that support the international student
experience. These recommendations, which introduce a basis for further discussion and
study, include the following:
• Strategic reinvestment—Incorporate or reinvest resources into the student experi-
ence at all levels of operations, such as the service mission, faculty engagement,
organizational leadership structure, and assessment priorities, so that adequate ser-
vices and resources can be implemented to support student initiatives.
• Partnerships and collaborations—Collaborate on initiatives to reach a wider
audience, adopt a cohesive, cross-departmental plan with student affairs, academic
units, and other service units on campus, and remain intentional at involving a
variety of campus and community stakeholders in international programming.
• Programming and outreach—Implement culturally sensitive programming and

interventions that support international students during times of high stress to help
them with their academic, social and cultural adjustment to campus.
• Holistic communication—Establish a strategic communications plan and promo-
tional campaigns to effectively reach, liaise, and optimize engagement among inter-
national students.
• Training and development—Build intercultural competence among faculty, staff,
and students, aimed at understanding the experience of international students and
improving views of campus services for that community.
• Assessment and benchmarking—Regularly assess the experience of international
students, through assessment tools developed in-house or by external providers,
to ensure quality in the assistance provided in both academic and non-academic
settings.
While this empirical study investigated a large sample of students, it also had a few
limitations. As with all self-report surveys, responses from the ISB may reflect response
bias from participants. Additionally, this study only evaluated undergraduate, degree-
seeking students and did not control for institutional type, which may influence student fit.
Future research should also consider the experience of students at the graduate and non-
degree levels, and possibly expand the scope to more participating institutions in emerging
and non-English-–speaking markets globally.
References
Alfattal, E. (2017). International students’ college choice is different! International Journal
of Educational Management, 31(7), 930–943.
Ammigan, R. & Jones, E. (2018). Improving the student experience: Learning from
a comparative study of international student satisfaction. Journal of Studies in
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment
factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.
Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., & Pearce, A. (2013). Finding
common ground: Enhancing interaction between domestic and international students
in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235.
Arthur, N. (2017). Supporting international students through strengthening their social
resources. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 887–894.
Baer, J. (2017). Fall 2017 international student enrollment hot topics survey. Institute of
International, New York.
Banjong, D. N. (2015). International students’ enhanced academic performance: Effects of
campus resources. Journal of International Students, 132(1), 132–142.
Banjong, D. N. & Olson, M. R. (2016). Issues and trends of international students in the
United States. International Journal of Education, 4(1), 1–14.
Baranova, P., Morrison, S., & Mutton, J. (2011). Enhancing the student experience through
service design: The University of Derby approach. volume 15.
280 Ammigan
Brett, K. J. (2013). Making the most of your International Student Barometer data: A guide
to good practice.
Briggs, P. & Ammigan, R. (2017). A collaborative programming and outreach model for
international student support offices. Journal of International Students, 7(4), 1080–1095.
Choudaha, R. (2018). A third wave of international student mobility: Global competitive-
ness and American higher education. in Higher Education. Retrieved fromhttps://cshe.
berkeley.edu/publications/third-wave-international-student-mobility-global-competi
tiveness-and-american-higher.
Choudaha, R. & Hu, D. (2016). Higher education must go beyond recruitment and
immigration compliance of international students.
Crace, A. (2018). Australia: HE funding freeze will spark competition. The Pie News.
Hanassab, S. & Tidwell, R. (2002). International students in higher education:
Identification of needs and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Studies in
Hellsten, M. & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international student
experience. International Education Journal, 5(3), 344–351.
Hobsons (2016). International students are essential to UK higher education: The benefits
of international students to UK universities and the impact of government policy on
international student recruitment.
Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., Tsiligiris, V., & Peak, M. (2016). The shape of global higher education.
British, London.
Institute, A. C. E. (2017). What is the future of international students in the U.S.?
International, A. E. (2012). Enhancing the international student experience. Australian,
Canberra.
J, M. C., J, S., & J, C. (2006). International students’ decision-making process. International
Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101–115.
Mavondo, F. T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student
satisfaction: Resources and capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 14(1), 41–16.
Monitor, I. C. E. F. (2017). Australian education exports approaching AUS$29 billion.
Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the international student experience. American
College Personnel Association.
((n.d). International Student Barometer.
Nicholls, S. (2018). Influences on international student choice of study destination:
Evidence from the United States. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 597–622.
Roberts, P. & Dunworth, K. (2012). Staff and student perceptions of support services for
international students in higher education: A case study. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 34(5), 517–528.
Sarkodie-Mensah, K. (1998). International students in the U.S.: Trends, cultural
adjustments, and solutions for a better experience. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 39(3), 214–222.
Shah, M. & Richardson, J. T. E. (2016). Is the enhancement of student experience a strategic

priority in Australian universities? Higher Education Research and Development, 35(2),
352–364.
Solutions, Q. S. E. (2018). Harnessing opportunities in global higher education.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2018). New approaches to internationalisation in higher education.
18(4), 305–324.
Verbik, L. & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 44, 1–21.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & gaard, J. B. G. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an
empirical deconstruction of the concept. volume 8.
Author biography
Ravichandran Ammigan Ravichandran Ammigan, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the
Office for International Students and Scholars at the University of Delaware, USA.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 282–305
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.264
ojed.org/jis
Behavioral Health Risk and Resilience

Among International Students in the
United States: A Study of
Sociodemographic Differences
Youn Kyoung Kima , Arati Malekub , Catherine Lemieua , Xi Dua and Zibei
Chenc
Abstract: Using a resilience framework, the current cross-sectional study examined indicators
of behavioral health risk and resilience among U.S. international students (N=322) across key
sociodemographic characteristics. A multimethod approach was used to collect data with both
an online platform and paper-based survey instrument. Results showed that higher levels of
acculturative stress were reported by older students, females, undergraduates, students who lived
with their families, and those who had resided in the US longer than 2 years. Findings underscore
the importance of culturally relevant screening and prevention strategies that target resilience and
other protective factors to reduce health risk and encourage well-being and academic success among
international students
Keywords: acculturative stress, alcohol use, anxiety, depression, international students,

resilience
Introduction
International students have an ever-increasing presence in colleges and universities
worldwide. The US has, by far, the largest number of international students, a
population that has consistently increased in recent years (Institute of International
Education [IIE], 2016). International students enrich the educational landscape of U.S.
universities and provide unique opportunities for cultural and intellectual exchange,
and although the academic and cultural experiences gained in a foreign country are
rewarding, international students face both individual (e.g., financial difficulties, language
a Louisiana State University.

b Ohio State University.
c University of Michigan.
Behavioral Health Risk and Resilience 283
barriers) and structural challenges (e.g., perceived discrimination, higher academic

standards) that can compromise their successful adaptation (Eustace, 2007; Koyama &
Belli, 2011; Sullivan, 2010). Studies show that, as compared to their U.S. counterparts,
international students experience disproportionately high rates of behavioral health
difficulties (i.e., depression, anxiety, alcohol misuse) that can negatively impact their
academic performance and overall well-being (Holguin, 2011; Sa, Seo, Nelson, &
Lohmann, 2013). However, research also has emphasized the importance of culture-based
resilience, which can mitigate the impact of acculturative stress and other challenges (Kim
& Kim, 2014; Ungar, 2012). Although U.S. international students represent a diverse group
with regard to sociodemographic characteristics, little is known about the behavioral
health risk and protective factors among students with varying demographic profiles.
Using resilience as the theoretical framework, the present study addresses this gap in the
knowledge base by examining behavioral health risks and resilience in a diverse sample of
U.S. international students.
Literature Review
International Students in the United States
During the 2015–2016 academic year, a total of 1,043,839 international students were
enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, a 7% increase from the previous academic year
(IIE, 2016). According to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP, 2014) three
states (i.e., California, New York, and Texas) hosted over one third of all U.S. international
students (35%). The population of international students comprises a demographically
diverse group, with SEVP (2014) data showing that the slight, but growing majority is
male (56.3%). In terms of country of origin, the greatest proportion of U.S. international
students is from Asia (60%), with smaller proportions from Europe (23%), Africa (12%),
and other countries (5%; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
[OECD], 2013). According to the IIE (2016), approximately one third of Asian students in
the US are from China (31%), with smaller proportions from India and South Korea (at
14% and 7%, respectively). International students typically migrate to the US to pursue
degrees in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, as opposed to
the social sciences (IIE, 2016). In terms of specific areas of study, engineering, computer
and information science, and business (including management, marketing, and related
support services) are the most popular majors chosen by international students.
Acculturation, Acculturative Stress, and Behavioral Health Risks

As international students adjust to unfamiliar social, cultural, and educational environ-
ments, they experience acculturation—a dynamic, complex, and multidimensional pro-
cess of adaptation (Berry, 2005). This process of acculturation also can adversely impact
the well-being of international students due to acculturative stress, the discomfort and
difficulties in functioning students experience as they adapt to the language, norms, and
values of the host culture (Yang & Clum, 1995). Acculturative stress is rooted in both intrap-
ersonal (i.e., personality) and environmental factors (Sandhu, & Asrabadi, 1994), with older
international students typically demonstrating slightly higher levels of acculturative stress
284 Kim et al.
than their younger counterparts (Lau, 2006). Research suggests that religion and spiritu-
ality may help some international students cope with the demands of acculturation. For
example, Hsu, Krägeloh, Shepherd, and Billington (2009) found that religion/spirituality
was positively associated with both psychological and social quality of life among 164
international students in New Zealand. Extending this latter study, Chai, Krägeloh, Shep-
herd, and Billington (2012) sampled 679 students in New Zealand and found that Asian
students were more likely than European students to use religious coping strategies, irre-
spective of whether they were international or domestic students. Thus, religiosity or spir-
ituality might afford certain minority groups protection when confronted with accultura-
tion stressors.
Low English language proficiency (Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, & Al-Timimi, 2004),
inadequate social support (Hayes & Lin, 1994), and perceived discrimination (Ying & Han,
2006) are well-established factors that exacerbate acculturative stress among international
students. For example, using a relatively large sample of diverse U.S. international
students (N = 359), Yeh and Inose (2003) showed that low self-assessed English language
proficiency and low levels of social support were independent predictors of psychological
distress. Duru and Poyrazli (2007) found that lower levels of English language competency
and social connectedness predicted acculturative stress among 229 Turkish students
studying in 17 U.S. universities. At one U.S. university, Sherry, Thomas, and Chui
(2010) found that due to fear of discrimination because of language difficulties, Chinese
students were reluctant to interact with domestic students and subsequently suffered
from loneliness and other symptoms of depression and anxiety. Conversely, Poyrazli and
Kavanaugh (2006) found that international students who connected socially with students
from the host country showed lower levels of stress than those who were more isolated.
In a similar vein, Cheung and Yue (2013) found that local connectedness was positively
associated with resilience and negatively associated with depressed mood among 215
Mainland Chinese students enrolled in a Hong Kong university.
Acculturative stress is shown to have both proximal and long-term effects on
psychological well-being (Ying & Han, 2006). A substantial corpus of research undertaken
with diverse international student samples indicates that acculturative stress is associated
with an elevated risk of mental health problems (Constantine, Ogazaki, & Utsey, 2004;
Duru & Poyrazil, 2007), including depression, anxiety, and misuse of alcohol, tobacco,
and illicit drugs (Holguin, 2011; Li, Marbley, Bradley, & Lan, 2016; Sa et al., 2013; Wei
et al., 2007). Hahn (2010) examined interrelationships among stress, coping, cultural
orientation, and depression among 648 international students from 74 countries studying
at one U.S. institution and found that almost one fourth (22.6%) met criteria for clinical
depression, a rate twice that for domestic students. In a smaller survey of 130 Chinese
students at Yale University, Han, Han, Luo, Jacobs, and Jean-Baptiste (2013) found that
rates of depression (45%), and anxiety (29%) were approximately three times higher
than those for domestic students (at 14% and 9%, respectively). Although a handful
of studies report varying levels of depression and anxiety across gender with some U.S.
international student samples (e.g., Khoshlessan & Das, 2017; Lau, 2006), the research
has yielded no differences in rates of depression among international students across
other characteristics such as length of residency, educational level, religious affiliation, and
source of funding (e.g., Han et al., 2013; Wei et al., 2007).
Studies show that alcohol misuse, including binge drinking, is fairly prevalent among
U.S. international students (Holguin, 2011) and that higher levels of acculturative stress
are linked to stronger motivations to drink alcohol (Sa, 2010). Alcohol misuse can
detrimentally impact the overall psychological and physical health of international
students, which, in turn, can negatively affect their adaptation and academic performance
(Sa, 2010; Yeramaneni & Sharma, 2009). Research suggests that the fear and culture
shock experienced by many international students during the process of acculturation can
precipitate the development of negative coping strategies, including the use of alcohol
(Kanaparthi, 2009). For example, using a sample of 262 students enrolled in English
as a second language programs, Koyama and Belli (2011) found that some students
drank alcohol to increase pleasant feelings and to avoid the negative feelings associated
with acculturative stress. Based on a qualitative study of 16 international students’
health behaviors, Yan and FitzPatrick (2016) suggested that students who socialize with
American students by drinking alcohol are vulnerable to developing alcohol-related
problems. Similar to the U.S. undergraduate college population (Laudet, Harris, Kimball,
Winters, & Moberg, 2015), co-occurring mental health symptomology is common among
international students who misuse alcohol (Kim & Kim, 2014), with higher levels of
depression associated with hazardous use of alcohol (Sa, 2010).
Resilience
Resilience is the process by which individuals overcome risks and avoid negative outcomes
by using internal assets and external resources when confronted with stressful situations
(Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005), and it emerges as a protective factor against certain at-risk
behaviors (e.g., binge drinking) across diverse college populations (Hodder et al., 2011;
Ungar, 2012). Using a sample of 88 U.S. undergraduate students, Johnson, Dinsmore,
and Hof (2011) examined the relationship between resilience and five different levels
of alcohol use and found that students with higher levels of resilience reported less
alcohol consumption than those with lower levels of resilience. C. Y. Lee and Park (2014)
examined the moderating effect of resilience on the relationship between acculturative
stress and depression among university students from North Korea (N = 116) and found
that resilience buffered the negative impact of acculturative stress on depression.
In the context of students’ educational migration, resilience is a critical factor that
may enable international students to adapt to environmental change in positive ways (Sa
et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2014). From this perspective, resilience may enhance students’
adaptive coping, as well as help them avoid negative outcomes (e.g., mental health
symptomology, health risk behaviors) that are detrimental to their overall well-being
(Friborg, & Zimmerman, 2005). However, research undertaken with international students
has yielded somewhat mixed results. Using a sample of 290 Chinese international students
in Korea, Yoo and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that resilience partially mediated the
effect of acculturative stress on negative mental health outcomes; however, resilience was
not associated with any key sociodemographic characteristics, such as gender, education
level and major.
286 Kim et al.
Purpose of the Current Study

Although a substantial body of literature addresses acculturative stress and health-risk
behaviors among international students, no study to date has examined a full range of
potentially relevant sociodemographic correlates of behavioral health risk and resilience.
The extant research has focused only on a limited number of demographic variables
(age, gender, ethnicity), and it has yielded mixed findings (e.g., Poyrazli et al., 2004).
In terms of ethnicity, studies have focused more so on Asian international students in
different geographical areas in the US, and on Chinese international students, in particular
(Iwamoto & Liu, 2010; Lau, 2006; Wei et al., 2007).
Gender emerges as a potentially relevant correlate of both acculturative stress and
behavioral health risk and resilience (Koyama & Belli, 2011; C. Y. Lee & Park, 2014). Given
recent recommendations to incorporate a more gendered perspective into migration
research undertaken with international students (Sondhi & Russell, 2017), additional
investigation of the role of gender is warranted. Age, ethnicity, marital status, and English
language proficiency also are associated with acculturative stress among international
students (Poyrazli et al., 2004). A host of additional educational (educational experience
in the US, area of study, academic performance, and sources of funding) and other
characteristics (religious affiliation, family status, length of stay in the US) have emerged as
relevant correlates of acculturative stress (Chai et al., 2012; Duru & Poyrazli, 2007; Sullivan,
2010); however, these latter covariates have received little attention in studies specifically
assessing behavioral health risk and resilience among international students.
Although acculturative stress can be a chronic stressor among international students
who are confronted with unpredictable challenges in a new environment, they generally
have the ability to successfully navigate both daily living and academic challenges without
engaging in health risk behaviors (Chin, 2016; Ying & Han, 2006). The role of resilience
in relation to sociodemographic characteristics, however, is not well understood. Given
the diversity that characterizes U.S. international students, a comprehensive examination
of students’ sociodemographic profiles will facilitate a better understanding of important
sub-group similarities and differences with respect to acculturative stress and behavior
health risk and resilience.
Research Method
Study Design and Sample
Using resilience as the conceptual framework, the current study employed a cross-
sectional survey design to describe behavioral health risk and resilience across key
sociodemographic factors among U.S. international students. Prospective participants
consisted of foreign-born students who currently were foreign citizens and enrolled in
a degree program (undergraduate or graduate) at a U.S. college/university with either
an F-1 or J-1 visa. Data were collected using a multi-method survey approach that
enabled respondents to either participate in an online survey or complete a paper-
based questionnaire that was administered face to face. The study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of the primary researcher’s affiliated university.
Respondents for the online survey were recruited through social networking sites,
including Facebook, where prospective participants were identified from the websites
of international student clubs nationwide. To ensure a more representative sample
and increase sample size, a maximum variation sampling method was used to select
large universities with international student populations of 5,000 or more and smaller
institutions with populations of less than 1,000. Information about U.S. international
student populations was retrieved from the IIE website. The online survey was hosted
on a web-based survey platform, Qualtrics, with biweekly follow-up reminders and
survey information posted on each website. For the paper-based surveys, a convenience
sampling method was used to recruit prospective participants from four large universities
in a southern state. The principal investigator administered the survey face to face either
with individual students or in small-group settings, whichever was most feasible. A total
sample of 341 cases was collected (150 from the online survey and 191 from the paper-
based survey) over a 5-month period of time (August 27, 2015 to January 17, 2016).
However, due to missing data (>80% of items), 19 cases from the online survey were
removed. The final sample included 322 participants: 131 cases from the online survey
and 191 from the paper-based survey.
Measurement
The survey instrument consisted of 74 items in five major sections. Sociodemographic
information was collected with 14 questions.
A researcher-modified version of the Index of Life Stress (ILS; Yang & Clum, 1995) scale
was used to assess acculturative stress among participants. Used in previous research
with Asian (Yang & Clum, 1995) and with non-Asian international students in the US
(e.g., Koyama & Belli, 2011; Sullivan, 2010), the original, validated ILS contains 31
items comprising five subdomains of stressful life events (financial concerns, language
difficulties, perceived discrimination, cultural adjustment, and academic pressure).
Respondents are asked to select a number that best represents their personal experience
living in the US, with response options range from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Item responses
are summed yielding a total ILS scale score (Range = 0–93), with higher scores indicating
higher levels of acculturative stress. Based on the published results of previous validation
studies (Yang & Clum, 1995), and as recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson,
and Tatham (2006), ILS items with factor loadings below 0.6 were eliminated in the
current study. This yielded a shorter, 15-item version that demonstrated adequate internal
consistency (at Æ = .82), with total scores ranging from 0 to 45. Examples of items retained
in the modified ILS scale include: I am worried about my academic performance, my
English makes it hard for me to understand lectures, and many opportunities are denied
to me.
288 Kim et al.
Resilience
A researcher-modified version of the 31-item Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) was used to
measure respondents’ protective and resilience factors. The RSA includes six subdomains
(positive perception of self, positive perception of future, social competence, structured
style, family cohesion, and social resources) and has been cross-culturally validated with
various samples in different languages, including Norwegian (e.g., Friborg, Hjemdal,
Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003), Persian (Jowkar, Friborg, & Hjemdal, 2010), and French
(Hjemdal et al., 2011). The RSA is measured on a 5-point Likert scale with response options
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Individual items are summed to
obtain a total RSA score (Range = 31–165), with higher scores indicating higher levels of
resilience (Hjemdal et al., 2011). Similar to the approach used with the ILS, published
validation studies were reviewed to identify and eliminate RSA items with factor loadings
below 0.6 (Hair et al., 2006), thereby yielding a 20-item RSA (Range = 20–100) with adequate
internal consistency reliability (at Æ = .80). Examples of retained RSA items include: I enjoy
being with other people and my family and I have a common understanding of what’s
important in life.
Mental Health
The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer & William, 2001) was
used to measure depression symptomology and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder
(GAD-7) scale (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Löwe, 2006) was used to measure symptoms
of anxiety in the current study. The clinically validated PHQ-9 demonstrated satisfactory
internal-consistency reliability (Æ = .87) and construct validity in Hahn’s (2010) study,
which sampled 648 international students from 74 countries. The PHQ-9 asks respondents
to indicate how often they experienced certain problems during the prior 2-week period
(e.g., feeling tired or having little energy, little interest or pleasure in doing things), with
response options measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3
(nearly every day). Total PHQ-9 scale scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 indicate mild, moderate,
moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams,
2001). A score of 10 or higher is considered a cut-off point, with a sensitivity of 88% for
major depression (Kroenke et al., 2001). The GAD-7 asks respondents about the frequency
of anxiety symptoms (e.g., trouble relaxing, worrying too much about different things)
during the prior 2 weeks, with response options range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every
day). GAD-7 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 indicate mild, moderate, moderately severe, and
severe anxiety, respectively (Kroenke et al., 2001. A score of 10 or higher is a cut-point for
clinically significant anxiety (Kroenke et al., 2006).
Binge Drinking
The alcohol-related questions of the Monitoring The Future Survey (MTF; Johnston,
O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2014) were used to assess the extent to which
students in the current study engaged in binge-drinking experiences. The MTF defines
binge drinking as consuming five or more drinks in a row, at least once, during the prior
2-week period. The binge-drinking item was measured with response options ranging
from 1 (none) to 6 (10 or more times); however, due to lack of variability, responses were
dichotomized as no (0) and yes (1) for subsequent data analyses.
Data Analysis
A four-phased analysis was employed (using SPSS 20; IBM Corp,2011) to describe
participants’ characteristics and shed light on key differences across the four main latent
variables (i.e., acculturative stress, resilience, mental health, and alcohol misuse). First,
a normality test was conducted using Fisher’s skewness and kurtosis coefficients to
confirm that the data met the assumptions for parametric bivariate analyses. As seen in
Table 1, the values for asymmetry and kurtosis of the subdomains for both acculturative
stress and resilience fell within the acceptable range for demonstrating normal univariate
distribution (2 and +2), as did the values of skewness and kurtosis for depression and
alcohol misuse (Brown, 1988). Next, a missing value analysis was conducted, revealing that
all variables except for three had less than 2.2% of cases missing (i.e., previous educational
experience, grade point average [GPA], and funding source). Thus, as recommended by
Acuña and Rodrigues (2004), a multiple imputation method was employed.
Next, univariate statistics were used for descriptive purposes. Bivariate analyses
were conducted in the final phase to examine differences in acculturative stress,
resilience, anxiety, depression, and alcohol misuse across key sociodemographic
characteristics. Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was computed to
examine interrelationships among variables measured at the interval level and the point-
biserial correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the degree of relationship
between dichotomous and interval-level variables (Brown, 1988). Chi-square tests of
independence were conducted to determine whether associations between binge drinking
and key variables were independently distributed. Independent-samples t tests and
analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were computed to compare differences on measures of
acculturative stress, resilience, and anxiety across sociodemographic variables measured
at the nominal level (e.g., gender, marital status, and country of origin). Tukey’s honestly
significant difference (HSD) was used in conjunction with ANOVA for post hoc assessment.
Results
Sociodemographic and Behavioral Health Characteristics
As shown in Table 1, the sample was primarily male (55.6%) and 25 years of age or less
(69.3%). The majority (61.2%) was from either India (37.6%) or China (23.6%) and pursuing
some type of graduate degree (71.4%). Most student participants were unmarried (85.4%)
and not living with their families (81.7%). As seen in Table 1, almost two thirds reported
having a religious affiliation (62.7%). Just over half of students had been in the US 1 year
or less (54.3%) and most had no prior experience as a student at another U.S. institution
(68.9%, See Table 1). Participants were most likely to report majoring in engineering
(32.6%), business (28.0%), and social sciences (10.5%) and well over half (55.5%) reported
GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. As seen in Table 1, family funds were the primary source of
financial support (45.0%) reported by students.
290 Kim et al.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample (N =322).
Variable % (n) Variable % (n)

Age Major
18–25 69.3 (223) Engineering 32.6 (105)
26–30 22.7 (73) Business 28.0 (90)
31–35 5.6 (18) Social sciences 10.5 (33)
36–40 2.5 (8) Computer science 9.6 (31)
Gender Other 19.3 (62)
Female 44.4 (143) Length of Stay
Male 55.6 (179) Less than 6 months 35.7 (115)
Religious affiliation 6 months to 1 year 18.6 (60)
No 37.3 (120) Up to 2 years 16.5 (53)
Yes 62.7 (202) More than 2 years 29.2 (94)
Marital status GPA
Never married 85.4 (275) 0–2.9 44.5 (143)
Other 18.2 (59) 3.5–4.0 55.5 (179)
Family status Prior experience
studying at another institution in the US
Living without 81.7 (263) No 68.9 (222)
my family
Living with my family 18.3 (59) Yes 31.1 (100)
Country of origin
India 37.6 (121) Current source of funding
China 23.6 (76) GRA/GTA 18.9 (61)
South Korea 15.5 (50) Family funds 45.0 (145)
Taiwan 6.2 (20) Loans 14.9 (48)
Other 17.1 (55) Other 21.2 (68)
Educational level
Bachelor’s 28.6 (92)
Master’s 55.6 (179)
Doctoral 15.8 (51)
Note. GPA = grade point average; GRA = graduate research assistantship; GTA =graduate teaching assistantship.
In terms of participants’ behavioral health characteristics, the mean score on the

measure of acculturative stress was 13.63; whereas the mean score assessing resilience
was 103.97 (see Table 2). Mean scores on measures of depression and anxiety (at 7.58
and 6.79, respectively) indicated that the sample, overall, reported mild symptoms of both
depression and anxiety. Cronbach’s alpha for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 was .91 and .92,
respectively, indicating good internal consistency reliability for both. As seen in Table 2,
less than one fourth of participants reported engaging in binge drinking (at 21.7%).
Table 2. Acculturative stress and behavioral health risk and resilience: Description of measures (N =
322).
M or %(n) SD Range Skewness Kurtosis

Acculturative 13.63 0.45 0–45 0.844 1.085
stress
Resilience 103.97 1.13 29–140 0.684 0.450
Depression 7.58 0.35 0–27 0.934 0.297
Anxiety 6.79 0.29 0–21 0.787 0.166
Binge drink- 21.7 (70) — — — —
ing
Correlations
A correlation matrix was computed to examine interrelationships among key variables. As
shown in Table 3, anxiety and depression were strongly and positively correlated (.797).
Acculturative stress was positively and moderately correlated with both depression and
anxiety (at .507 and .468, respectively). Table 3 shows that negative and relatively weak
correlations emerged between resilience and the four variables measuring behavioral
health risk; namely, depression (°.253), acculturative stress (°.234), anxiety (°.170), and
binge drinking (°.147).
Table 3. Intercorrelations among acculturative stress and behavioral health risk and resilience (N =
322).
1 2
Acculturative stress —
Resilience °.234*** —
Anxiety .468*** °.170** —
Depression .507*** °.253*** .797*** —
Binge drinking .032 °.147** °.038 .001 —
** p < .01, *** p < .001.
As shown in Table 4, international students between the ages of 36 and 40 and 31
and 35 reported significantly higher levels of acculturative stress (M = 21.10 and 15.50,
respectively) than those between the ages of 26 and 30 and 18 and 25 (M = 14.47 and 12.95,
respectively). Thus, higher levels of acculturative stress distinguished older international
students from younger ones. In terms of gender differences, females (M = 15.41) reported
higher levels of acculturative stress than males (M = 12.22; see Table 4). International
students who were never married (M = 13.04) reported lower levels of acculturative stress
than those who were either married, divorced, separated, or widowed (M = 17.13); and
students living with family members reported significantly higher levels of stress than
292 Kim et al.
those who were not (M = 17.24 and 12.83, respectively; see Table 4). As seen in Table 4,
international students whose length of stay in the US exceeded more than 2 years showed
higher levels of acculturative stress than all students whose length of stay was less than
that.
International students from India reported lower levels of acculturative stress than
those from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and other countries. Further, those who
came from countries other than the four major Asian countries had the highest
levels of acculturative stress (see Table 4). Lower levels of acculturative stress,
therefore, distinguished international students from India from those reporting all other
nationalities. International students majoring in the social sciences (M = 17.88) showed
considerably higher levels of acculturative stress than did those majoring in computer
science, engineering, business, and other areas of study (M = 11.48, 12.36, 13.59, and
12.83, respectively). Thus, higher levels of acculturative stress distinguished Social Science
majors from all other majors. As seen in Table 4, undergraduate students reported higher
levels of acculturative stress (M = 16.21) than graduate students at either the master’s (M =
12.12) or doctoral levels (M = 14.31).
Resilience
Table 4 shows that students with a religious affiliation showed higher levels of resilience
than students without such an affiliation (M = 106.65 and 99.44, respectively). Students
from countries other than the four major Asian countries (M = 107.64) and from India
(M = 106.83) demonstrated higher levels of resilience than those from South Korea (M =
103.06), China (M = 99.04), and Taiwan (M = 97.50). In terms of educational level, graduate
students at the doctoral (M = 107.88) and master’s levels (M = 105.72) reported higher levels
of resilience than undergraduate students (M = 98.38; see Table 4).
Anxiety and Depression

As seen in Table 4, female international students showed higher levels of anxiety than
their male counterparts (M = 7.57 and 6.16, respectively). Participants with a religious
affiliation (M = 7.38) showed more anxiety than did those without a religious affiliation
(M = 5.79). In terms of academic performance, international students with GPAs below
3.0 reported higher levels of anxiety than those with GPAs of 3.0 and higher (M = 14.50
and 7.54, respectively; see Table 4). Students from countries other than the four major
Asian nations and undergraduates demonstrated the highest mean anxiety scores (M =
8.45 and 8.04, respectively), approaching moderate levels (∏10). In terms of depression,
higher levels of depressive symptomology distinguished females (M = 8.43) from males (M
= 6.91) and also undergraduates (M = 9.32) from graduate students at the both the master’s
and doctoral levels (M = 7.30 and 5.43, respectively). Among all student groups, mean
depression scores approached clinical levels (∏10) for both undergraduates (M = 9.32) and
students from countries other than Asian nations (M = 9.67; see Table 4).
Binge Drinking
Table 4 shows that the proportion of international students who engaged in binge drinking
was greater for students without any religious affiliation (28.3%) than for those with a
religious affiliation (17.8%). International students with no prior educational experience
in the US were less likely to have engaged in binge drinking than those with a prior
educational history (at 18.0% and 30.0%, respectively). As seen in Table 5, only one
significant difference emerged across measures of anxiety, depression, resilience, and
stress: Students who engaged in binge drinking showed lower levels of resilience (M =
98.31) than those who did not (M = 105.54).
Discussion
The current study investigated sociodemographic differences across a host of behavioral
health risk and resilience factors in the context of U.S. international academic mobility.
Acculturative stress was associated with eight of the 12 sociodemographic characteristics
under investigation, resilience and anxiety with three characteristics each, and depression
and binge drinking with two each. Numerous significant intercorrelations emerged among
the five primary outcomes of interest, with the strongest, not surprisingly, between anxiety
and depression. In addition, both anxiety and depression showed moderate correlations
with acculturative stress, demonstrating co-occurrence of behavioral health risk factors
and acculturation-related stressors among participants in the current study.
Consistent with prior research showing a positive relationship between age and
acculturative stress (Lau, 2006), higher levels of stress emerged among older than
younger students. Interestingly, undergraduate students showed higher stress levels than
graduates. It is possible that graduate students, who were overrepresented in the sample,
were slightly younger than undergraduates. On the other hand, the somewhat paradoxical
findings suggest that adapting to a new academic and cultural environment may be
especially challenging for older students with more entrenched traditional beliefs and
practices, greater family responsibilities, or both. Also, the lower levels of stress among
younger international students may reflect the fact that their length of residency at the
time of the survey precluded the development of acculturation-related difficulties, an
interpretation somewhat supported by the relatively high levels of acculturative stress
observed among students whose length of stay exceeded 2 years. However, due to the
cross-sectional design, it is unknown whether stress levels remain high and constant over
time or fluctuate with the changing demands posed by the host country. Longitudinal
research is needed to develop knowledge about the precise nature of this latter association
among diverse U.S. international students.
In terms of gender, females in the current study demonstrated higher levels of
acculturative stress than their male counterparts, a result that is somewhat at odds
with previous research showing no such association (Eustace, 2007; Lau, 2006; Sullivan,
294 Kim et al.
2010). Other studies have yielded mixed findings (e.g., Poyrazli et al., 2004), suggesting
that it possibly may be culture-based, traditional gender roles, rather than gender, per
se, that is associated with higher stress levels, an interpretation that is consistent with
the considerably lower levels of acculturative stress reported by unmarried international
students. This latter finding suggests the possible presence of a complex interplay
of factors with regard to the role of the family for international students. Poyrazli
and Kavanaugh (2006) suggested that the marital relationship has a stress-buffering
effect; however, this latter study did not control for gender due to low power. The
pressure of being responsible for the welfare and acculturation of spouses and other
family members in an unfamiliar country may outweigh the presumed benefits of
having family members nearby to provide needed social support. However, there are
few studies about international students’ experiences as partners and parents, leading
Doyle, Loverridge, and Faamanatu-Eteuati (2016) to conclude that international students’
accompanying family members are invisible in data collection systems, research, and
policies pertinent to international education. A recent, small-scale, narrative analysis
showed that international students with families do, in fact, have concerns about their
children’s adjustment as family members navigate numerous transitions in the host
country (Loveridge, Doyle, & Faamanatu-Eteuati, 2018). Additional research is needed
to shed light on the influence of gender, marital status, children’s experiences, and other
family-related factors on the level of acculturative stress experienced by U.S. international
students.
Levels of stress also varied according to students’ nationality. In the current study,
students from India had lower levels of acculturative stress than students from China,
South Korea, Taiwan, and other countries, findings that are consistent with those of
previous investigations conducted with Asian international students also showing higher
levels of acculturative stress among Chinese students (e.g., Iwamoto & Liu, 2010; Lau,
2006; Wei et., 2007). It is important to note that in the current study, international
students in the social sciences (e.g., political science, sociology) demonstrated higher
levels of acculturative stress than students in other areas of study, such as engineering,
computer science, and other STEM fields. In addition to possible heightened demands for
acculturation, international students in the social sciences receive less financial support
than those in the STEM disciplines (SEVP, 2014). Students from countries other than India
were overrepresented in the social science field, suggesting that the observed relationship
between acculturative stress and academic major may be linked to students’ nationality.
Conversely, students from India in the current study were overrepresented in the STEM
fields, which may contribute to a more positive collective cultural experience and enhance
the availability of peer support, thereby mitigating the negative stress associated with the
process of acculturation.
Resilience
Three demographic characteristics (i.e., religious affiliation, country of origin, and
educational level) distinguished international students with higher levels of resilience
from those with lower levels. International students reporting a religious affiliation
showed higher levels of resilience than those reporting no such affiliation, a finding that
is consistent with a large corpus of research undertaken with culturally diverse samples
demonstrating a positive and robust association between religiosity and adaptive coping
(see, e.g., Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015; Javanmard, 2013; E. K. Lee & Chan, 2009).
Students from India in the current study showed higher levels of resilience than those
from Asian countries, a finding that also may reflect the collective strength afforded by the
notable overrepresentation of this particular subgroup in the overall international student
sample.
Graduate students showed higher levels of resilience than undergraduates, a difference
that might be explained by the older students’ level of maturity. This latter interpretation,
however, is somewhat at odds with previous research undertaken with international
students in Korea showing no association between either age or education level and level
of resilience (Cheung & Yue, 2012; Yoo et al., 2014). Thus, given the substantive importance
of relevant contextual factors (e.g., host country) when examining students’ well-being
and other outcomes, additional research investigating sociodemographic correlates of
resilience among U.S. international students is warranted.
Anxiety and Depression

Consistent with previous research undertaken with U.S. international students (Khosh-
lessan & Das, 2017), females in the current study showed higher levels of anxiety and
depression than their male counterparts. Although the average GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores
were within the mild-to-moderate range, findings highlight the heightened vulnerability
of female international students to mental health symptomology, a gender-specific issue
that may merit attention when orienting international students to campus life. Preven-
tion strategies could include screening mechanisms at university settings to gauge levels of
mental health among international students. Students with lower GPAs (<3.0) had higher
levels of anxiety when compared to those with higher GPA (∏3.0), as would be expected,
given universal expectations for high academic achievement from international students.
Participants with some type of religious affiliation had higher anxiety levels than did those
without a religious affiliation, a somewhat counterintuitive finding. However, it should be
noted that the average level of anxiety was within the mild-to-moderate range. The result
may be artefactual, given the sizable proportion of students, overall, reporting such an
affiliation (at 62.7%). It also is plausible that the relatively higher levels of anxiety expe-
rienced by some international students preceded a decision to affiliate with a particular
religion. Thus, the relationship between anxiety symptoms and religious affiliation merits
further longitudinal investigation.
As compared to graduate students, undergraduates showed higher levels of both mental
health symptomology and acculturative stress. Previous research with international
students, and those with low levels of English proficiency, in particular, has yielded
similar findings regarding interrelationships among anxiety, depression, and stress (Yeh &
Inose, 2016; Ying & Han, 2006). It is possible that undergraduate international students
in the current study were more isolated and lonely than their graduate counterparts
(Sherry et al., 2010), as well as had fewer coping resources, as evidenced by significantly
lower levels of resilience. Taken together, the findings underscore those of previous
296 Kim et al.
studies demonstrating the heightened vulnerability of certain populations of international

students to psychological distress (Hahn, 2011; Holguin, 2011; Sa et al., 2013).
Binge Drinking
International students with no prior U.S. educational experiences were less likely to
engage in binge drinking than those who previously studied at other U.S. institutions,
a finding that is consistent with the extant research emphasizing the protective benefits
afforded by traditional cultural values (i.e., immigrant paradox, Kim & Kim, 2014). It is
possible that international students in the current study developed unhealthy patterns of
alcohol use that paralleled those of their U.S. peers with whom they interacted socially
(Yan & FitzPatrick, 2016). Yet no differences in binge drinking emerged in the current
study across the different lengths of stay, suggesting more complex interrelationships at
play here. Overall, approximately one in five international students (21.7%) engaged in
binge drinking, a rate approximately half that of U.S. college students (at 40%, National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2015a), but concerning nonetheless, given the
elevated risk posed by acculturative stress and its potential threat to international students’
psychological wellbeing. Binge drinking is associated with other health-risk behaviors and
poor academic achievement in U.S. college student populations (e.g., El Ansari, Stock, &
Mills, 2013) suggesting a need for culturally competent approaches for detecting alcohol
misuse among U.S. international students.
International students without any religious affiliation were more likely to engage
in binge drinking than those with a religious affiliation. Although the role of religion
as a protective mechanism among international students has received some scholarly
attention (e.g., Hsu et al., 2009), the stress-buffering benefits of religion and spirituality
afforded to diverse immigrant populations has been widely discussed (e.g., Hodge,
Cardenas, & Montoya, 2001; Hsu et al., 2009). Among U.S. college students, religion is
associated with reduced alcohol use (Galen & Rogers, 2004; Thompson, 2017). Given
the positive association that emerged between religious affiliation and resilience in the
current study, the findings converge to tentatively suggest that religiosity may mitigate the
stressors that render some international students vulnerable to binge-drinking behavior.
However, these complex interrelationships warrant further multivariate testing.
Implications
Concerns about the adjustment and mental health of international students have emerged
in the scholarly literature for approximately two decades (e.g., Bradley, 2000; Mori, 2000;
Pan, Ng, Young, & Caroline, 2017). Some of the observed difficulties can be attributed
to a variety of adjustment issues, such as acculturative stress (Hans, Pistole, & Caldwell;
2011), academic stressors (Liu, 2009), loss of social support (Cheung & Yue, 2011), and
racial discrimination (Yakunina, Weigold, & McCarthy, 2011). However, these latter issues
are linked to elevated levels of mental health symptomology, and, as evidenced by the
current study, certain populations (e.g., females, undergraduates) are more vulnerable
than others. Institutions that benefit from the presence of diverse international students
should be proactive in identifying and intervening early on with those who struggle
with anxiety, depression, substance misuse, and other emergent behavioral health issues.
Previous research (e.g., Han et al., 2013; Kim & Kim, 2014; Rahman & Rollock, 2004),
together with the findings of the current study, which underscored the co-occurrence
of behavioral health risk factors and acculturation-related stressors among participants,
have clear implications for campus-based interventions, including early identification
through outreach and education and professional counseling. Further, study findings also
provide implications for education policies pertaining to diverse needs and capacity of
Culturally Responsive Mental Health Services

The importance of providing culturally sensitive mental health services to international
students is universally emphasized by researchers. Use of translated materials to assess
mental health concerns of students (Chalungsooth & Schneller, 2011), providing culturally
sensitive counseling services (Masuda et al., 2009), group assertiveness training (Tavakoli
et al., 2009), and group cognitive behavioral intervention (as cited in Smith & Khawaja,
2011) are some of the promising strategies that have shown to decrease mental health
symptoms and increase post-migration growth among international students. Thus,
although evaluation research is scant, there is some evidence indicating that psychosocial
interventions are beneficial to international students who obtain professional counseling
(Mori, 2000).
While international students are a diverse population group, there are some common
adjustments issues they face across different sub-populations. These include acculturative
stress, language barriers, discrimination, and so forth (Han et al., 2013). However,
fewer international students utilize campus-based mental health services for professional
counseling (Mori, 2000). Prior studies show that one third of 41 students dropped
out of counseling after the intake session (Nilsson, Berkel, Flores, & Lucas, 2004) and
international students were rarely present for individual counseling (Yakunina, Weigold,
& McCarthy, 2011). Yakinina and colleagues (2011), therefore, recommended a group
counseling approach might be a suitable intervention to address adjustment concerns and
mental well-being of international students.
While literature has established that international students have lower utilization of
mental health services (Mori, 2000), it should be noted that underutilization of services
does not mean the problem does not exist. In fact, research suggests the cultural values of
international students influence their willingness to seek professional counseling services.
Students’ perceptions of both self-stigma and public stigma toward counseling services
influence help-seeking behavior. Effective and culturally responsive mental health
services should therefore, seek to understand international students’ attitudes toward
counseling services as part of a comprehensive, culturally sensitive assessment process
(Lee, Ditchman, Fong, Piper, & Feigon, 2017). Between the cultural barriers and service
environment, however, it is important to note that lack of cultural sensitivity is an obstacle
to service utilization and delivery not just caused by language barriers, but a conflict
between cultural outlook on life and values making provider–patient communication
difficult (Maleku & Aguirre, 2014).
298 Kim et al.
Despite widespread acknowledgement and some evidence showing that psychosocial

interventions may, in fact, be beneficial for some populations of international students,
there is scant intervention research with this population. More intervention research
studies are therefore needed to inform programs and interventions that can provide the
most culturally responsive counseling services to international students.
Culturally Responsive Outreach and Education

Underutilization of mental health services among international students also highlights
the need for outreach and education programs. Programs that use culturally responsive
methods are particularly crucial as international students do not usually report to college
counseling centers (Nilsson et al., 2004; Li et al., 2016). Early identification of potentially
problematic adjustment issues may be therefore, accomplished via systematic outreach
(Boone et al., 2011). Often times, international students may not be aware that they
are experiencing heightened symptomology (Chalungstooth & Schneller, 2011). Further,
barriers to obtaining mental health services as indicated above include self-stigma about
mental illness and stigma toward professional counseling services (Lee et al., 2017; Li et al.,
2016; Masuda et al., 2009), which need creative and culturally responsive ways for outreach
and education.
Outreach during orientation sessions can be the first step. International students can
be provided with information about symptoms of both depression (Kroenke et al., 2001)
and anxiety (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Lowe, 2016), as well as research-based facts
about recommended drinking limits for men and women (NIAAA, 2015b). Dissemination
of translated materials in different languages to help international students express their
mental health concerns can be very helpful (Chalungsooth & Schneller, 2011). Outreach
activities such as the “Let’s Talk” program that provide informal consultation might
also be very helpful (Boone et al., 2011) as these informal sessions can also be less
stigmatizing. Prior research indicates that outreach programs can promote help-seeking
behaviors among Asian students whose cultural values may render them unwilling to
seek professional counseling services when needed (Lee et al., 2014). Given the needs of
diverse international students, outreach and education programs can also be inclusive of
international students who are parents and who may have concerns about their children’s
adjustment (Loveridge et al., 2018). It should also be noted that culturally responsive
outreach and education can only be successful when international students themselves
are engaged in the process. So, peer learning programs where some experienced
international students are involved as mentors to new cohorts of international students
can drive these campus-based initiatives.
Cohesive Learning Environment

Studies have indicated that effective advising of minority students is strongly associated
with the advisor’s ability to identify and address issues such as, acculturation, cultural
myths and stereotypes, and value conflicts, often faced by diverse populations (Pan et al.,
2017). Furthermore, issues of diversity and migration should be addressed more on college
campuses, which will also educate students from mainstream groups to be more aware
of issues faced by their international peers. Facilitation of such awareness will not only
increase peer understanding and support between students from all backgrounds (Zhang,
Larkin, & Lucey, 2014), this will also increase awareness among university administrators.
This awareness can link student interests with larger university systems that can then,
support educational policies that help create a cohesive learning environment. Further
this will also bolster the campus climate to be more equitable to all students (Okazawa-
Rey, 2017).
Research Implications
While studies highlight that binge drinking is a public health challenge among college
students in the US (Beck et al., 2008) and that binge drinking increases among
international students as they try to conform to the drinking culture (Koyama & Belli,
2011), literature that compare the rates of binge drinking among U.S. students and
international students is sparse and fragmented. Future studies should explore these
comparisons that would significantly inform programs and policies to bolster the campus
climate for all students. Further, this will also contribute to the field of health risk behaviors
among college students with pragmatic approaches. Similarly, U.S. college students
are significantly facing many mental health challenges (Pace, Silk, Nazione, Fournier, &
Collins-Eaglin, 2018). While the causes of anxiety and depression among U.S. college
students might be different from that of international students, studies that compare
linkages and differences could decipher comprehensive mental health services that are
equitable to all students based on individual needs. Similarly, since resilience is a strong
protective factor against health risk behaviors (Chin, 2016), strengthening resilience levels
of international students might have ripple effects on U.S. students and vice versa. More
studies focusing on resilience are therefore needed to inform.
Limitations, Merits, and Conclusions

As with all cross-sectional survey research, limitations are inherent and must be
acknowledged, most notably in the areas of design, sampling, measurement, and analytic
approach. A cross-sectional design does not permit inferences about the temporal order
of conditions or events. Longitudinal designs are most appropriate for tracking changes
in students’ risk and resilience markers over time. The use of a convenience sampling
method introduces possible biases that may affect the representativeness of the obtained
sample. The majority of participants (52.8%) for the paper-based survey were recruited
from four large universities in one southern state and the use of social networking
sites (for the online survey) precluded researchers from confirming the eligibility of
prospective participants. Graduate students were disproportionately represented (71.4%),
as compared to national-level data (47.6%; IIE, 2016), as were participants from India
(at 37.6% and 14.0%, respectively). Thus, the findings can be generalized only to U.S.
international students sharing similar characteristics in comparable geographical and
institutional contexts.
There also may have been issues with measurement reliability. Although the
standardized tools used in the current study (i.e., ILS, RSA, PHQ-9, GAD-7) have been
300 Kim et al.
normed with diverse populations, it is possible that certain items were misunderstood
by respondents with lower levels of English proficiency or unique cultural perspectives
that resulted in differential perceptions of mainstream behaviors or symptoms (Furr &
Bacharach, 2008). In addition, the latter four instruments and the tool used to assess binge
drinking were vulnerable to social desirability bias among student participants who may
have been embarrassed, fearful of negative evaluation, or unnecessarily concerned about
possible academic consequences. Finally, the modifications made to the ILS and RSA
instruments may have compromised reliable measurement of these outcomes of interest.
Finally, the use of bivariate statistical approaches, appropriate for the exploratory-
descriptive purpose of the current study, did not allow researchers to develop a more
comprehensive understanding of factors affecting U.S. international students’ well-being.
Given the number of empirically relevant sociodemographic variables that emerged in
the current study, a multivariate approach would enable researchers to determine the
particular characteristics that best predict different risk and resilience outcomes among
students.
Despite these latter limitations, the current study extends the knowledge base in
several ways. It is one of the few studies to examine numerous sociodemographic
and educational characteristics within a risk and resilience framework. The study was
undertaken with a relatively sizeable and diverse sample of U.S. international students.
Also, rather than focusing on static personality traits (e,g., Duru & Poyrazli, 2007; Wei
et al, 2007), the current study, which is concerned with more malleable markers of
behavioral health, demonstrates how acculturative stress and symptoms of depression and
anxiety, although conceptually related, differentially manifest for certain subpopulations
of U.S. international students. For example, although older students showed higher
levels of acculturative stress, younger students experienced higher levels of depressive
symptomology.
Findings of the current study highlight the diversity that characterizes U.S. interna-
tional students, as well as underscores the potential relevance of a behavioral health risk
and resiliency framework for understanding their experiences. As noted by Börjesson
(2017), research describing the experiences of international students is a critical area of
inquiry in migration studies, and the current study lays a solid foundation for additional
investigations examining the predictive ability of key sociodemographic characteristics on
international students’ adaptation to the US and on their mental health and well-being.
Results of the current study suggest the need to implement and test culturally respon-
sive approaches that target distressed and at-risk international students. The research
evidence, albeit scant, supports the use of targeted outreach and education, as well as
psychosocial counseling with some populations of international students. Providing cul-
turally responsive tailored interventions to each international student will be the first step
in the right direction in creating cohesive learning environment conducive to all students.
References
Abu-Raiya, H. & Pargament, K. I. (2015). Religious coping among diverse religions:
Commonalities and divergences. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(1), 24–33.
Ansari, W. E., Stock, C., & Mills, C. (2013). Is alcohol consumption associated with poor
academic achievement in university students? International Journal of Prevention
Medicine, 4(10), 1175–88.
Beck, K. H., Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., O’Grady, K. E., & Wish, E. D. (2008).
Social context of drinking and alcohol problems among college students. American
Journal of Health Behavior, 32(4), 420–430.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in the two cultures. International
Börjesson, M. (2017). The global space of international students in 2010. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies, 43(8), 1256–1275.
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide
to statistics and research design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chai, P. P. M., Krägeloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2012). Stress and quality of
life in international and domestic university students: Cultural differences in the use of
religious coping. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(3), 265–277.
Chalungsooth, P. & Schneller, G. R. (2011). Development of translation materials to assess
international students’ mental health concerns. Journal of Multicultural Counseling &
Development, 39(3), 180–189.
Cheung, C. & Yue, X. (2013). Sustaining resilience through local connectedness among
sojourn students. Social Indicators Research, 111(3), 785–800.
Cheung, C. K. & Yue, X. D. (2012). Sojourn students’ humor styles as buffers to achieve
resilience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 353–364.
Chin, F. P. (2016). A study of retention and achievement: Assessment of international
students’ resilience and coping strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest dissertations and theses. (Order, No., 10230223.
Constantine, M. G., Ogazaki, S., & Utsey, S. O. (2004). Self-concealment, social self-efficacy,
acculturative stress, and depression in African. Asian, and Latin American international
college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 230–242.
Doyle, S., Loveridge, J., & Faamanatu-Eteuati, N. (2016). Counting family: Making the
family of international students visible in higher education policy and practice. Higher
Education Policy, 29(2), 184–198.
Duru, E. & Poyrazli, S. (2007). Personality dimensions, psychosocial-demographic
variables, and English language competency in predicting level of acculturative stress
among Turkish international students. International Journal of Stress Management,
14(1), 99–110.
E., A. & Rodrigues, C. (2004). The treatment of missing values and its effect on classifier
accuracy. pages 639–648, Chicago: Illinois. Institute of Technology.
Eustace, R. W. (2007). Factors influencing acculturative stress among international
students. in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
dissertations and theses.
302 Kim et al.
Fergus, S. & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for

understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Public Health, 26, 399–419.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for
adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment?
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65–76.
Furr, R. M. & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks.
Sage, CA.
Galen, L. W. & Rogers, W. M. (2004). Religiosity, alcohol expectancies, drinking motives and
their interaction in the prediction of drinking among college students. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 65(4), 469–476.
Hahn, Z. L. (2010). Coping with acculturative stress and depression among international
students: A cultural perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
dissertations and theses. (Order, No., 3447492.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, X., Han, X., Luo, Q., Jacobs, S., & Jean-Baptiste, M. (2013). Report of a mental health
survey among Chinese international students at. Yale University. Journal of American
College Health, 61(1), 1–8.
Hodder, R. K., Daly, J., Freund, M., Bowman, J., Hazell, T., & Wiggers, J. (2011). A school-
based resilience intervention to decrease tobacco, alcohol and marijuana use in high
school students. BMC Public Health, 11(722), 1–10.
Hodge, D., Cardenas, P., & Montoya, H. (2001). Substance use: Spirituality and religious
participation as protective factors among rural youth. Social Work Research, 25(3), 153–
161.
Holguin, L. E. (2011). Substance use and social networks of international students
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses. (Order, No.,
1495485.
Hsu, P. H., Krageloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2009). Religion/spirituality and
quality of life of international tertiary students in New Zealand: An exploratory study.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 12(4), 385–399.
Iwamoto, D. K. & Liu, W. M. (2010). The impact of racial identity, ethnic identity, Asian
values, and race-related stress. on Asian Americans and Asian international college
students’ psychological well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 79–91.
Javanmard, G. H. (2013). Religious beliefs and resilience in academic students. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 744–748.
Johnson, N., Dinsmore, J. A., & Hof, D. D. (2011). The relationship between college
students’ resilience level and type of alcohol use. International Journal of Psychology,
8, 67–82.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2014).
Monitoring the Future national results on drug use: 1975–2013: Overview, key findings
on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute.
Jowkar, B., Friborg, O., & Hjemdal, O. (2010). Cross-cultural validation of the Resilience
Scale for Adults (RSA) in Iran. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 418–425.
Kanaparthi, A. (2009). Relations between acculturation and alcohol use among

international students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations
and theses. (Order, No., 3394817.
Khoshlessan, R. & Das, K. P. (2017). Analyzing international students’ study anxiety in
higher education. Journal of International Students, 7(2), 311–328.
Kim, M. & Kim, K. (2014). A study of Chinese students’ acculturative stress, depression
influencing on drinking problem and social maladaptation: Moderating effect of ego
resilience. Asian Journal of Child Welfare and Development, 12(2), 23–41.
Koyama, C. & Belli, G. (2011). Alcohol use, acculturative stress, and drinking motivation
among international community college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
& Development, 39(4), 229–240.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9 validity of a brief
depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.
Lau, J. S. (2006). Acculturative stress, collective coping, and psychological well-being
of Chinese international students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
dissertations and theses. (Order, No., 3245416.
Laudet, A. B., Harris, K., Kimball, T., Winters, K. C., & Moberg, D. P. (2015). Characteristics
of students participating in collegiate recovery Programs: A national survey. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 51, 38–46.
Lee, C. Y. & Park, J. H. (2014). The effects of acculturative stress and resilience on depression
of university students from North Korea. Family and Environment Research, 52(3), 313–
324.
Lee, E. K. & Chan, K. (2009). Religious/spiritual and other adaptive coping strategies
among Chinese American older immigrants. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52,
517–533.
Li, J., Marbley, A. F., Bradley, L. J., & Lan, W. (2016). Attitudes toward seeking professional
counseling services among Chinese international students: Acculturation, ethnic
identity, and English proficiency. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development,
44(1), 65–76.
Loveridge, J., Doyle, S., & Faamanatu-Eteuati, N. (2018). Journeys across educational
and cultural borders: international postgraduate students with young children. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 333–347.
Maleku, A. & Aguirre, R. (2014). Culturally competent health care from the immigrant lens:
a qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis. volume 29.
Pace, K., Silk, K., Nazione, S., Fournier, L., & Collins-Eaglin, J. (2018). Promoting
mental health help-seeking behavior among first-year college students. Health
Communication, 33(2), 102–110.
Pan, J., Ng, P., Young, D. K., & Caroline, S. (2017). Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral
group intervention on acculturation. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(1), 68–79.
Journal, 40, 767–780.
Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and
demographic correlates of acculturative stress in International students. Journal of
304 Kim et al.
College Counseling, 7, 73–82.

Sa, J. (2010). Binge drinking, drinking and driving, and cigarette smoking among Korean
international. college students in the U.S. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest dissertations and theses. (Order No. 3432133.
Sa, J., Seo, D. C., Nelson, T. F., & Lohrmann, D. K. (2013). Cigarette smoking among Korean
international college students in the United States. Journal of American College Health,
61(8), 37–41.
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International students: A vulnerable student
population. The Journal of Higher Education, 60, 33–46.
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 699–713.
Sondhi, G. & Russell, K. (2017). Gendering international student migration: An Indian
case-study. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(8), 1308–1324.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Lowe, B. (2016). A brief measure for assessing
generalized anxiety disorder. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–097.
Sullivan, C. (2010). Predictors of acculturative stress for international students in the
United States (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses.
(Order, No., 3432885.
Tavakoli, S., Lumley, M. A., Hijazi, A. M., Slavin-Spenny, O. M., & Parris, G. P. (2009). Effects
of assertiveness training and expressive writing on acculturative stress in international
students: A randomized trial. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 590–596.
Thompson, W. E. (2017). Social support, religious involvement and alcohol use among
students at a conservative religious university. Behavioral Sciences, 7(2), 2–12.
Ungar, M. (2012). The social ecology of resilience. Springer, New York.
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Mallen, M. J., Ku, T., Liao, K. Y., & Wu, T. (2007). Acculturative stress,
perfectionism, years in the United States, and depression among Chinese international
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 385–394.
Yan, Z. & FitzPatrick, K. (2016). Acculturation and health behaviors among international
students: A qualitative approach. Nursing & Health Sciences, 18(1), 58–63.
Yang, B. & Clum, G. A. (1995). Measures of life stress and social support specific to an Asian
student population. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Assessment, 17(1), 51–67.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 15–28.
Yeramaneni, S. & Sharma, M. (2009). Predictors of alcohol use and binge drinking among
Asian Indian students. American Journal of Health Studies, 24(2), 287–297.
Ying, Y. & Han, M. (2006). The contribution of personality, acculturative stressors, and
social affiliation to adjustment: A longitudinal study of Taiwanese students in the United
States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(5), 623–635.
Yoo, M., Choi, S. Y., Kim, Y. M., Han, S., Yang, N., Kim, H., & Son, Y. (2014). Acculturative
stress, resilience, and depression among Chinese students in Korea. The Journal of
Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education, 19(3), 320–329.
Zhang, Q., Larkin, C., & Lucey, B. (2014). The economic impact of higher education
institutions in Ireland: Evidence from disaggregated input output tables. Social Science
Review Network.
Author biography
Youn Kyoung Kim , is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at Louisiana
State University at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Her research interest focuses on resilience and
behavioral health problems among youth.
Arati Maleku is an Assistant Professor in the College of Social Work at Ohio State University.
Her research interests focus on the phenomenon of human migration, forced migration,
social demography, and social determinants of immigrant health.
Catherine Lemieu is a Margaret Champagne Womack Professor in Addictive Disorders

at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Her research interests include
substance use disorders and integrated health.
Xi Du is a doctoral student in the School of Social Work at Louisiana State University

at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Her research interests include immigrant children’s positive
development and family welfare.
Zibei Chen is a postdoc research fellow in the School of Social Work at University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Her interests include financial behaviors, financial
literacy, and access to financial services among low-income households.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 306–319
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.258
ojed.org/jis
“Education Abroad” for International

Student Advisors: What Is the Impact on
Their Professional Development?
Wei Liua
Abstract: It is generally agreed that participating in study abroad programs, even short term, has
positive impacts on students. But what would be the impact of an “education abroad” opportunity
for staff members in international education? Reported in this paper is a 3-month professional
development program in a Canadian university for 52 international student advisors from 51
different Chinese institutions. Based on data from a survey and their comparative research reports,
the study aims to glean the impacts of such an education abroad opportunity for international
education professionals after their exposure to a different national context and different practices in
international education. Findings of this study show that international comparison can serve as an
effective approach to the professional development of international education professionals, which
enhances their historical, contextual, and cultural understanding of their own work.
Keywords: China, Canada, education abroad, international student advisors, professional

development
Introduction
In 2012, China became the world’s third most popular study destination for international
students, and the most popular in Asia (ICEF Monitor, 2017). In the People’s Republic
of China, the term “international students” refers to students studying in China who
hold non-Chinese citizenships. However, Chinese citizens who immigrated from China
(including Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) are only considered foreign citizens when
they have gained non-Chinese citizenship for up to 4 years and have lived overseas for
the immediate past 2 years upon their application to Chinese universities (see Ministry
of Education of the People’s Republic of China [MoE], 2009). China currently does not
recognize dual citizenships.
According to the Chinese MoE statistics in 2015, there are close to 400,000 international
students studying in China’s over 800 institutions (MoE, 2016), and this is about 100,000
a University of Alberta.
"Education Abroad" for International Student Advisors 307
short of the enrollment target of 500,000 by 2020 in the government’s Study in China
Plan (MoE, 2010). China also hopes to significantly improve the quality of international
student education by 2020, according to a policy paper of the State Council on the
internationalization of Chinese education (State Council, 2016).
In student services, China has a national policy of one dedicated student advisor for
each 200 undergraduate students (an earlier standard was 1 to 150; MoE 2006), working as
a one-stop shop of services (Liu & Lin, 2016). A recent central government regulation on
international student recruitment and education requires that the same 1:200 ratio apply
to the services of international students (MoE, 2017). What this means is that there should
be a team of about 2,000 international student advisors in Chinese universities providing
services to the 400,000 international students.
As an emerging destination country for international education, international student
advising in China is a new and growing profession. Apart from the quality of
academic programming, the competence of international student service providers
and their ongoing professional development are important factors to international
students’ overall learning experience and success in China. Reported in this study is
a professional development opportunity for 52 international student advisors from 51
Chinese institutions in a cross-national and cross-cultural context. The goal of this study is
to explore the impact of this “study abroad” opportunity for the professional development
of international student advisors.
Study Abroad
A global survey of the International Association of Universities shows that study abroad
has great impact on the student self, including academic achievement, personal growth
and independence, the ability to manage identity change, and a stronger sense of self-
efficacy (Gu, 2012). Another survey study conducted by the Institute for the International
Education of Students found that a study abroad experience is often seen as a defining
moment of a young person’s life, and the benefits of such an experience in one’s personal
growth, intercultural development, and education/career development last long after
the experience itself (Dwyer, 2017). At the national level, students with study abroad
experience may develop a sense of “enlightened nationalism” (C. Jones, 2015), when they
become more aware of and more tolerant of the different values held by different countries,
and less prone to seeing such differences as a source of threat to one’s national security.
A NAFSA synthetic analysis of many existing studies measuring the impact of study
abroad shows that international learning experiences have positive impacts on students’
academic, educational, and professional outcomes, both in immediate and lifelong terms
(NAFSA, 2017). Specifically, the benefits include:
• improves completion, retention, and transfer (to degree programs) rates;

• improves grade point average;
• improves language learning;
• fosters intercultural understanding, provides a global context, and builds enlight-
ened nationalism; and
• increases employability and career skills.
308 Liu
In sum, there seems to be convincing evidence to demonstrate the benefits of a study

abroad opportunity to students as a learning activity. The most common goal for
education abroad programs is to help students acquire intercultural competences so
that they are able to fully participate in the international world (Stier, 2004). Education
abroad experiences benefit university students in their development of cognitive, affective,
and behavioral skills in cross-cultural communication so much so that it can be a
transformative experience for some individuals (Root & Ngampornchai, 2012). Being
exposed to and having to adapt to an unfamiliar academic setting enriches the overall
academic experiences of students. But what could be the impact of a study abroad
opportunity on international education professionals? In particular, what would be the
benefits for international student advisors to walk out of their own national environment
and immediate work context and get exposed to a different national and cultural system
of international education and student services?
The Case Study

Examined in this paper as a case study is a 3-month-long professional development
program for 52 international student advisors from China in a study abroad context. The
52 international student advisors were selected from 51 different Chinese universities
by the China Scholarship Council who also provided funding for the program. Over
80% of these 51 universities represented are strong national universities who receive
central government funding. They are either Project 211 universities and/or Project 985
universities. Project 211 was initiated in 1995 to provide extra national funding to 100 or
so select Chinese universities in order to raise their research standard for the 21st century;
Project 985 was initiated in 1998 to provide even more national funding to top Chinese
institutions (altogether 39 institutions funded) to allow them to compete with the first-
class universities in the world (see e.g., Zhang, Patton & Kenney, 2013). The other 20% of
the participants in the program were from key provincial universities. The program was
hosted and delivered at a Canadian university in the summer of 2016. The university is
one of the top five research-intensive universities in Canada with a strong international
profile.
The 3-month curriculum aimed to expose the 52 Chinese colleagues to the practices
in international education in the Canadian university in five modules. Module 1
introduces the university governance system in Canada, including the higher education
system in Canada, the relationship between governments and universities, and the
bicameral governance model within a university. Module 2 is on higher education
internationalization strategies in Canada, both at the national level and institutional
level. Module 3 is more specifically about the international student recruitment strategies
and practices in the Canadian university. Module 4 is on international student services.
And the last module is a series of supporting activities to help participants immerse in
Canadian life and culture, including some site visits and 10 sessions of high-level content-
based ESL. Figure 1 summarizes the organization of the five modules:
The five modules were delivered in diverse forms, such as whole-class lectures, smaller
scale round tables, and even smaller counterpart meetings. There were ongoing discussion
sessions with facilitations by staff members at the Canadian university. The participants
Figure 1. Organization of the five curriculum modules
were required by the funding agency to conduct rigorous comparative research on self-
chosen topics, using information obtained from the program, and they were to hand in
their research reports upon the end of the program. The 52 participants also conducted
multiple surveys among themselves on different issues in order to compare and reference
practices in international education in the 51 different universities in China. The results of
these surveys are mentioned in their research reports.
Permission was obtained from the 52 Chinese colleagues to use their research reports
(altogether 400 pages) as data to inform this study. An analysis of the 52 research reports
shows that their research has focused on the following three major areas of Canadian
practices in international education:
• Higher education internationalization strategies (19 reports), such as the Canadian
international education strategy, the international education strategies at the
Canadian university, and different international education programming;
• International student recruitment (13 reports), such as international student
recruitment strategy and marketing and communications in international student
recruitment;
• International student services (20 reports), such as the model of student services in
Canada and the student-centered concept in student services.
Most reports start with factual accounts of the governance and administrative structure at
the Canadian university, particularly the structure and practices of student services. Fol-
lowing the factual account is typically a comparison with the Chinese system, and based
on the comparisons, the authors almost unanimously make policy recommendations at
the end. In addition to their research reports, another source of data for this study is the
program evaluation survey conducted at the end of the program. Apart from questions
to elicit their feedback on the delivery of the program itself, there are three open-ended
questions in the survey that aimed to collect data on their learning outcome during the
program:
• When you return to your home institution, and your colleagues ask you about the
differences in international education in Canada and China, what would you say?
310 Liu
• Based on your understanding, what practices in international education at the

Canadian university are worth borrowing by Chinese institutions?
• Based on your understanding, what practices in international education in Chinese
universities should be borrowed by Canadian universities?
The third source of data was collected ethnographically through long-term engagement
during the program by the researcher who also worked as the curriculum designer,
program manager, and the learning facilitator. The researcher, with bilingual skills and
cross-cultural research experience in China and Canada, participated in most whole-
group lectures, taking research journals on interactions between 52 Chinese colleagues
and their Canadian counterparts. Research journals were also taken to record key points
in the discussions within the group to compare the different practices.
According to Deardorff’s (2006) pyramid model of international competence, the
outcomes of international learning experiences can be measured by examining the
acquired degree of knowledge/ comprehension, skills, desired internal and external
outcome. Given the data available, we were not able to examine their more abstract skill
development, nor their behavioural outcomes. Instead, the data analysis focused on their
growth in cross-cultural knowledge and comprehension of their work. “Phenomenological
themes may be understood as the structures of experience.” (van Manen, 1990, p. 79)
A thematic analysis was conducted on the information of the qualitative data with a
balanced focus on frequency and saliency. Three themes emerged based on the frequency
of their appearance, and the 4th theme was added based on its saliency and relevance to
the issue of professional development.
Findings
In this section, the four themes derived from data analysis will be presented as findings
of the study. These four themes serve to demonstrate the major impacts of this “study
abroad” experience on the 52 international student advisors’ professional learning.
Raised historical awareness of higher education development in China

The data first shows evidence that the Chinese group of advisors has developed a
heightened awareness of the different historical contexts of the two higher education
systems. The group learned that the Canadian university was established in 1908 in one
of the prairie provinces in Canada. Coincidentally many top Chinese universities were
established during the same period, such as Beijing University in 1898, Nankai University
in 1904, and Tsinghua University in 1911 (based on their institutional websites). However,
the Canadian university enjoyed relatively peaceful development and stable investment
throughout the 20th century, as no war was fought on the mainland of Canada. But this
was not the case for China.
In 1911, a republican revolution led by Sun Yet-Sun overturned the Qing Dynasty
(1644–1912) and ended the feudalist rule in China. During the following 37 years
of the Republican Government (1912–1949), the country experienced three civil wars
(1924–1927; 1927–1937; 1945–1949) and the Second World War (WWII) in between
(1931–1945) during which the Republican Army and the Communist Army joined hands
to fight the Japanese invitation. In 1937, when the Japanese troops took over Beijing and
Tianjin, Beijing University, Tsinghua University, and Nankai University had to move all
the way to the southern border city of Kunming and merge into the Southwest United
University (Yi, 2012).
After WWII, higher education in Canada enjoyed fast development and quick expansion
due to the veterans’ benefits program, which provided free university education for
veterans returned from the wars overseas (G. A. Jones, 2014). However, after WWII,
China experienced the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) when universities were closed and
scholars were considered dangerous people to the Communist cause (see e.g., Chan, 1985).
The Chinese group of advisors believed that the real development of higher education in
China has been since the 1980s. After the Cultural Revolution, the new Chinese leadership
began to introduce market principle in running the economy. And in higher education, the
government began to change the highly centralized system built in the 1950s and began to
gradually shift more autonomy to individual universities (Mok, 1999). The government
investment in higher education increased in large margins in the 1990s through the 211
and 985 projects, as we mentioned above.
As a result of the different historical paths, the Chinese group of advisors believed
that Canada and China are at different stages of development in higher education. They
were impressed by the buildings and facilities of the Canadian university, such as the
24-hour hot water supply and the same room temperature kept all year round, things
taken for granted in Canada. They were impressed by the level of “Informationization”
in the Canadian university, a Chinese term to refer to the use of information technology
in teaching, research, administrative work, and student services. They liked the
fully integrated online system for students’ registration, course selection, research
administration, and online course offering. They also liked the institution-wide uniform
email system for faculty, staff, students, and visitors. As an example, one participant said
the following:
The Chinese government has increased investment in higher education

in the past four decades, and the Chinese higher education system
has experienced fast development. However, compared with Canadian
universities, we need still more investment so as to improve the general
quality of Chinese higher education provision, both hardware wise and
software wise.
They were most impressed by the high level of internationalization in Canada as a

whole, with over 10% of undergraduate students being international and over 40% of
faculties having at least one degree from overseas (see Canadian Bureau for International
Education, 2018). They admired the large number of high quality student services
provided at the Canadian university for both domestic and international students, which
they believe truly reflect the principle of “student centeredness.” They paid attention to
the full credit system taken for granted in North American universities that gives students
easy mobility between programs and institutions. But such freedom requires resources in
terms of the large number of available courses and staff’s time to process these transfers.
The group found that the number of administrative staff is higher in Canada, with a rough
312 Liu
ratio of about 2 to 1 with academic staff, while the ratio in Chinese universities is about 1
to 1. One participant wrote in her report:
Professors from my university always say that we have too many

administrative staff, often quoting that the overseas universities are more
effective in their operations. But since coming here, I realized that
Chinese universities have way fewer administrators in proportion! We
would need to more people to provide more and better services.
Raised contextual awareness of the policy framework for international

education in China
The data also show evidence that, through comparison, the group of advisors
grew a heightened awareness of the national policy framework for international
education in China. According to their observation, the Chinese government is the
funder, manager, and evaluator of higher education in China, while in Canada, the
governments are the principal funder of higher education, but universities have more
autonomy in management and evaluation. In terms of international student education,
Chinese universities receive strong financial support from Chinese governments to
grow international student recruitment. According to Chinese MoE data (2016), there
were 40,600 international students supported by Chinese government scholarships in
2015, which was about 10.21% of all international students studying in China. Of the
40,600 government scholarship students, about 68% were graduate degree students, 22%
undergraduate degree students, and 10% non-degree students (e.g. language and cultural
studies). The group learned that there are scholarships in Canada for international
graduate students (mostly funded by professors’ research dollars), but very few and very
little for international undergraduate students and non-degree students.
But the more centralized higher education management and evaluation system in
China also sets limitations for institutions’ internationalization effort. One participant
wrote in her report,
The university in China is taken, not as an independent legal entity,

but as an administrative unit of the government with the President
appointed as a civil servant and a government official. Thus, the
university lacks autonomy in institutional decision making, including
policies in internationalization.
One example given by the Chinese group of advisors is international dual degree programs.
The degrees offered in China are theoretically all offered by the national government,
as the government has the ownership and oversight of all degrees offered by Chinese
institutions. Thus, when Chinese universities hope to start a dual degree program with an
overseas partner or to deliver their programs overseas, it will have to be approved by the
government. They learned that in Canada, universities have ownership of their degrees
and thus have freedom to engage in international dual degree collaboration and oversea
deliveries, as far as they are existing programs.
China also has a planned quota system for all government employees, including
employees in universities (faculty and staff). Universities have to hire within the number
allocated by the government. The group reported that their offices are often short-staffed
with the quick increase of international students and the national quota system does not
allow them to freely increase staff members, even if they have the budget. They will have
to apply to the central Human Resources office for new positions due to the quota system.
One of the surveys among the 51 Chinese institutions suggests that most universities
(about 70%) have only six to eight staff members in their Faculty of International Education
where all their international students are housed; 64% of the universities have only one to
two dedicated staff members for international recruitment. Only 10% of these have over
six staff members for recruitment. Given this reason, most of them have multiple roles to
play, such as marketing and recruitment, agent relations, daily advising, and relations and
communications with teaching colleges/departments. The recent national government
regulation on one dedicated advisor for each 200 international students might be able to
change this situation (MoE, 2017). According to one participant:
As we are short-staffed, it is quite common for us to work overtime.

We feel jealous to learn that the international office at the Canadian
university has freedom to add staff members when necessary and our
Canadian counterparts do not have to work overtime as often as we do.
The group realizes that, as Canada is an immigration country, it welcomes international

graduates to stay to work after graduation. For this reason, many staff members at
the International Office of the Canadian university have experiences in international
education themselves, and many were international students to Canada who stayed on
to work. In contrast, most staff members working in international education in China
have a more uniform background, typically with a degree in foreign language studies from
Chinese institutions. They would love to hire people who have international backgrounds
to work in different regions of their expertise, but for a long time, the Chinese government
did not allow their international students to stay and work in China upon graduation. A
recent policy from the national government has allowed a limited number of international
students (who graduated with master’s degrees and above) to stay and work in China. This
might change the situation and help increase the professional level of their staff.
International travel policy of government officials, including mid-level and senior
administrators at universities, is another limitation on their internationalization
effort. According to the current policy, mid-level and senior administrators (Associate
Deans/Associate Directors and above) must hand in their passports to the university to
keep. Their international travel plans must be approved through an internal procedure
within the university, and then approved by the governments, before they can obtain their
passports and apply for overseas visas. In general, each academic college/department’s
annual international travel plans must be included in the institutional annual plan before
their trips are to be approved. And in principle, an international delegation sent by an
academic unit must not have over three delegates. In addition, they can only spend up
to 5 days in one country, no more than 8 days in two countries during one trip. The
national policy is part of the national anti-corruption campaign, but it can cause many
314 Liu
inconveniences to universities’ internationalization missions. One participant mentioned

the following in a discussion session:
When our senior university administrators need to travel overseas, it is

a common practice to book the flights to leave China after midnight so
that we can spend more time for activities but still meet the requirement
of no more than 5 days in one country.
The group of advisors considered themselves very lucky to be selected to attend this 3-
month program overseas. As the program is organized by the national government as
a professional training opportunity, it can bypass the 5-day-in-one-country policy for
international business trips.
Raised cross-cultural awareness of student development in China

The data also show evidence that the group of advisors increased their cross-cultural
understanding of student development in the two countries, and the two student
development cultures are related to the demographic contexts of the two countries. The
two countries have similar land sizes, but very different populations: for each Canadian,
there are 40 Chinese! Given a smaller population, the group learned that Canada’s
participation rates in higher education are among the highest in the world (see e.g.,G.
Jones, 2014). Canada ranks first among the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development countries in the proportion of adults with a college education (24%) and
ranks eighth in the proportion of adults with a university education (26%) (Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012). Though China quickly expanded
undergraduate enrollment around the turn of the century, the demand for higher
education is still very high. In particular, China has an education-first culture (see Liu,
2016), as a result of which all parents want their children to go to top-ranked universities.
Through comparison, the Chinese group believe that Chinese higher education can be
said to be a “seller’s market” as the demand is much higher than supply, while compared
to China, Canada’s higher education is almost a “buyer’s market,” since the entrance to
postsecondary education is not as competitive and students have many more options.
University entrance in Canada is based on students’ applications with high school grades,
while in China, to ensure fairness in a competitive environment, university admission is
based on a national exam as a uniform selection tool, known as Gao Kao. According to the
reflection of the Chinese group, Gao Kao in a way creates different expectations in Chinese
students and parents out of university education. One participant commented,
Once students pass Gao Kao and get admitted into a university, it means
that they have demonstrated ability to succeed in higher education. It is
thus the university’s failure if they do not graduate.
The Chinese group were shocked to learn that 20% of Canadian students on average fail
to graduate from their universities within 6 years (see Jeong, 2016), as in China, every
university aims for 100% graduation rate within 4 years. For every course, there are make-
up exams if students fail at the first attempt. If they fail at the second attempt, they can take
part in a final make-up exam before graduation. Students in Chinese universities pay a set
amount of tuition by the year, and they can take as many courses as they can within the
year. If students are not happy with the mark of a course, they can take the course multiple
times without paying additional fees, and the highest appears on their transcripts. One
participant joked,
If 20% of our undergrads fail to graduate, we will be in trouble, and our

president will be in trouble too. Satisfactory graduation rate is used as an
important measure of the quality of education by the governments.
The Chinese group believe that the Canadian university takes “limited” responsibility for
students’ success, while universities in China take “unlimited” responsibility for students.
One participant of the group shared that, in her university’s international preparatory
program funded by the Chinese government to prepare government scholarship winners
for degree studies, one dedicated staff member is arranged to go to the classroom to
take attendance every morning. For students who are late for class, he or she will warn
them in person; for students who skip 10% of the classes, the university will report them
to the funding agency in the central Chinese government; for students who skip 20%
of the classes, the university will report to the funding agency and notify the embassy
of the students’ governments; for students who skip 30% of the classes, the university
would expel them, and report to the funding agency to cancel the scholarship, copying
the students’ embassy as well. For students who never skip a single class, the university
would give out certificates of full attendance as recognition and encouragement. They
learned that, in Canada, the professors and administrators typically do not take students’
attendance in class, as they do not see it as their duty to make sure they come to class.
Some members of the Chinese group shared that one of the most difficult moments
for Chinese university administrators is when a student dies accidentally or commits
suicide on campus, which unfortunately happens both in China and Canada. In the
Chinese case, the parents would always hold the university accountable for their child’s
death, as they died under the university’s care. Economic compensation is often made
to their parents by the university to settle the issue. The Chinese colleagues asked their
Canadian counterparts if they had to deal with the same issue. The answer is no, as the
students are adults and they are responsible for what they are doing. They learned that
young people in Canada are considered “adults” as soon as they turn 18, and they need to
take full responsibility for their life and study, while in China, university students are still
considered “adults in training” (see Liu & Lin, 2016).
Given the different understanding of university student development, this group of
advisors feel that the goal of student affairs work in China is more concerned about
controlling potential risks for students and keeping them free from troubles. To ensure the
safety of students in China, one universal practice, for example, is to require all students
to stay in residence on campus, and there is a curfew in place requiring students to return
to their dorm room before a certain time at night. In addition, students are not allowed
visitors in their dorms. There are guards stationed at the entrance of each residence to
enforce the curfew and no-visitor rule. The same practice is implemented for international
students. First, international students are typically housed in separate accommodations
316 Liu
from domestic Chinese students. One piece of Chinese legislation for foreign nationals is
that they are supposed to report their residences to the local Chinese police departments
within a short time upon their arrival in China, and there are designated accommodations
for foreign nationals, which do not include Chinese student dorms. But similar to the rules
for Chinese students, there is a curfew in the international residences and students are not
allowed visitors in their dorms overnight. However, according to the Chinese advisors,
Such rules have caused much dissatisfaction among international

students and they are often perceived as intrusions into international
students’ personal freedom.
Formation of a professional learning community for international

education in China
Though members of the group have been working in the same field in China in different
universities, not many of them knew each other personally before they came to study in
this program. During the 3 months in the program, the 52 Chinese colleagues seemed to
have formed a strong and tight “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998) in international
student services. One participant has commented,
We enjoy being part of a professional learning community for sharing

and mutual learning of practices in diverse universities in China.
We have mentioned above that the group took the opportunity to talk and survey among
themselves for the purposes of comparing and referencing policies in different institutions.
For example, through an internal information gathering survey, they learned that 38 of the
51 universities are using a separate international student information management system
from domestic students, while eight universities use the same system for both domestic
and international students, and another five don’t have a system yet. They also shared
information about which commercial systems they are using and which one is rated the
highest. During the program, they all formed a Wechat (a popular cellphone social media
app) group, and the Wechat group has kept the professional learning community going
after they returned to China. Being a member of the group, the author could observe that
the group members asked each other questions about practices in other institutions on
different issues constantly. They also visit each other’s universities when they identify the
best practices among themselves.
Discussion
Given the advances of globalization, education systems are no longer defined on a national
basis only (Crossley, 2002; Crossley & Broadfoot 1992). In the 21st century, comparative
education has been increasingly used as international benchmarks to evaluate educational
quality and efficiency at home (see e.g., Green 2003; Lang & Zha 2004; Nóvoa & Yaruv-
Marshal, 2003). In this sense, it is important to create opportunities for administrators
in higher education to be exposed to other systems so that they can reference practices
elsewhere as benchmarks. However, it is a complex task to assess the extent to which
a desirable policy observed elsewhere can be adopted and adapted to fit the home
circumstances and thus become part of the home system (Phillips & Ochs, 2004). To know
what is transferrable and what is not, a deep and systematic analysis through comparative
research is needed to reveal the historical, cultural, and economic contexts of different
practices.
However, policy borrowing does not have to be the most important goal in international
benchmarking. Through comparisons with the Canadian system, the group in this
study seem to have obtained a deeper understanding of their own work at home,
and this can be said to be a more important impact of this study abroad experience
on the participants. The data shows evidence of their raised historical awareness of
higher education development in China, raised contextual awareness of policy framework
for international education in China, and raised cross-cultural awareness of student
development in China. In addition, we are glad to see the formation of a professional
learning community for international education for China that can sustain their learning
in years to come.
In teacher education research, scholars have shown the importance of a bottom-up
approach in teachers’ professional development (see e.g., Connelly & Clandinin, 1988;
Lieberman & Wood, 2003; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). The bottom-up approach speaks to
the importance of communicating with colleagues in the same profession in a more casual
and friendly fashion, as was discussed above. It also speaks to the importance of learning
from lived experiences on the ground. One Chinese colleague in the program commented,
“We benefited from the lived experience as an ‘international student’ studying abroad so
that we can understand the needs of our international students going to study in China.”
Another participant shared his observation of the humanistic and caring culture in Canada
beyond the university campus: kneeling buses to provide accessibility of public facilities
to the disabled; people talking more quietly in public; holding doors for people coming
behind; saying hi to strangers; standing to the right on escalators; saying thanks to bus
drivers; and saying “sorry” all the time. Such observations from lived experience in a
foreign study abroad context are qualitatively superior to reading them from the books.
International comparison can be an effective approach to the professional develop-
ment of international education professionals, particularly for those with no or limited
prior international learning experience. Such a study abroad opportunity has provided
the Chinese group in this study a global perspective on what they do in China. The expe-
rience has provided assurance and confirmation of some of their practices in China, such
as the proactive model in student services (see Liu & Lin, 2016). The experience has also
challenged them to reconsider some of the practices they have taken as natural in China,
such as the differential model in international student management (also see Liu & Lin,
2016). The impact of international comparison as an approach to professional develop-
ment should not be measured by what participants can borrow from another system, but
by how much more they can understand their own work as a result of this experience.
Observed differences built in deep historical, contextual, and cultural understanding can
serve as a good foundation for innovation in future practices.
Conclusion
318 Liu
Similar to the previous research findings with regard to the impacts of study abroad
experiences for students, a study abroad opportunity can also have very positive
impact on the professional development of international student advisors in deepening
their understanding of their own work, and such deeper understanding can serve as
foundations of their innovation in their future practices. To strengthen the impact
and avoid simplistic understanding, engaging them in comparative analysis, applied
research, and enriched local experience can be important tools when implementing such
a program.
References
Chan, A. (1985). Children of Mao: Personality development and political activism in the
Red Guard generation. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of
experience. Teachers College Press, New York.
Crossley, M. (2002). Comparative and international education: Contemporary challenges,
reconceptualization and new directions for the field. Current Issues in Comparative
Education, 4(2), 81–86.
Crossley, M. & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Comparative and international research in education:
Scope, problems and potential. British Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 99–112.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education,
10(3), 241–266.
Dwyer, M. (2017). 27.). The benefits of study abroad.
Green, A. (2003). Education, globalization and the role of comparative research. London
Review of Education, 1(2), 83–97.
Gu, Q. (2012). The impact of study abroad on the student self. University World.
Jeong, J. (2016). 16). The big data revolution: Will it help university students graduate? The
Globe and Mail.
Jones, C. (2015). 10). The surprising effects of study abroad. Washington.
Jones, G. A. (2014). An introduction to higher education in Canada. In Joshi, K. M. &
Paivandi, S., editors, Higher education across nations, volume 1, pages 1–38, Delhi: B. R.
Publishing.
Lang, D. W. & Zha, Q. (2004). Comparing universities: A case study between Canada and
China. Higher Education Policy, 17, 339–354.
Lieberman, A. & Wood, D. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network
learning and classroom teaching. Teachers College Press, New York.
Liu, W. (2016). The international mobility of Chinese students: A cultural perspective.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(4), 41–59.
Liu, W. & Lin, X. (2016). Meeting the needs of Chinese international Students: Is there
anything we can learn from their home system? Journal of Studies in International
Education, 20(4), 357–370.
Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. The Althouse Press, London.
Mok, K. H. (1999). Education and the market place in Hong Kong and mainland China.
Monitor, I. C. E. F. (2017). China now the world’s third most-popular study destination.
Nóvoa, A. & Yaruv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of
governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438.
Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: Some methodological
challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 773–
784.
Root, E. & Ngampornchai, A. (2012). “I came back as a new human being”: Students
descriptions of intercultural descriptions of intercultural competence acquired through
education abroad experiences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(5), 513–
532.
Stier, J. (2004). Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher
education: Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalisation, Societies and
Education, 2(1), 1–28.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Whitehead, J. & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research living theory. = Thousand Oaks. Sage, CA.
Yi, S. (2012). Southwest United University in war and revolution [Chinese]. Jiuzhou Press,
Beijing.
Zhang, H., Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2013). Building global-class universities: Assessing
the impact of the 985 Project. Research Policy, 42(3), 765–775.
Author biography
Wei Liu obtained his PhD in Education from Beijing Normal University, and he was the
Myer Horowitz Postdoctoral Fellow (2011–2012) in Teacher Education and Professional
Development at the University of Alberta. Currently he is working at the University of
Alberta International, managing the Global Academic Leadership Development (GALD)
Program, a professional development program for university administrators from a
cross-cultural perspective. His research interests are in foreign language education and
international education, and his recent publications have appeared in English Teaching:
Practice and Critique, Educational Action Research, Journal of Studies in International
Education, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, and Language Policy.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 320–337
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.257
ojed.org/jis
International Undergraduate Student

Engagement: Implications for Higher
Education Administrators
Caroline Sabina Wekulloa
Abstract: Much has been written about engaging international students in their new campus
environments. However, there is still a gap between literature and practice in terms of such
students’ initial experiences. A systematic review of 48 studies published between 2007 and 2018 was
conducted to locate the research gaps, examine how and in what areas international undergraduate
students are being encouraged to participate, and their unique experiences with the process. The
findings show that few studies focused solely on international undergraduates. Their engagement
varied depending on the student’s background, major, region, and type of institution. These
students faced unique and uneven experiences with social support, academics, community identity,
connectedness, and perceived discrimination. Implications for higher education administrators,
international students, and researchers are suggested.
Keywords: academic experience, administrator, higher education, international students,

student engagement, undergraduate student
Introduction
International students on college campuses around the world are a diverse and increasing
population whose unique experiences have traditionally been overlooked. For example,
the number of international students at U.S. institutions of higher learning has reached
the highest levels to date. Enrollment has shown an overall increase of 7%, from 974,926 in
the 2014–2015 academic year to 1,043,839 in the 2015–2016 term (Institute of International
Education [IIE], 2016a). International students represent 5% of the total U.S. enrollment
in higher education. In 2016, approximately 427,313 were undergraduates, representing
40.9% of the total number of international students in the United States (IIE, 2016b).
The increase in the number of international students has been commensurate with
their contributions. Prior studies have stated that international students play an active
role in enhancing internationalization and globalizing higher education (Altbach & Knight,
2007; Bista, 2015). International students are also a significant financial resource, and
a Texas A&M University.

International Undergraduate Student Engagement 321
especially important considering the ongoing decline in state funding. It is estimated

that in the 2014–2015 academic year, these students contributed approximately $36 billion
to the U.S. economy (IIE, 2016c). It is clear that international students are essential to
building a global society.
Despite a substantial amount of research being conducted on this special population
of students, questions remain regarding how best to support international students’
academic engagement and success (Telbis, Helgeson, & Kingsbury, 2014). A majority of
previous studies focused on the challenges these students face related to transitioning,
acculturation, the language barrier, and/or financial problems (e.g., Lee & Rice, 2007;
Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). International students are unique as a group, and comprised
of individuals; their experiences undoubtedly vary. Relatively few studies have focused
solely on international undergraduate students, despite the sharp increase in this group of
students studying abroad (de Araujo, 2011). Thus, there is an increasing need to separately
investigate their college experiences (Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Ross & Chen, 2015;
Urban & Palmer, 2014; Zhao et al., 2005). Researchers who have attempted to compare
students’ levels of engagement have found that international students were either less
engaged or lagged behind their American counterparts (Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Van
Horne, Lin, Anson, & Jacobson, 2018).
Most institutions of higher learning have been attempting to increase international
students’ levels of engagement, making changes that are in line with certain policy
requirements. A considerable amount of literature has emphasized the need to increase
these types of opportunities for students (Van Horne et al., 2018). However, despite the
various resources and programs that universities offer to improve international students’
levels of involvement (Eldaba, 2016), evidence has suggested that schools are missing out
on opportunities to fully integrate these learners and sustain their engagement with their
academic environment (Siczek, 2015). Özturgut and Murphy (2009) analyzed the best
practices for supporting international students and noted that there was a gap between the
literature and common practice, especially in terms of programs designed for international
students. According to Özturgut and Murphy (2009), universities are not using research to
drive their practices for accommodating international students.
Changes in the overall political environment have also heightened the call for a
greater level of engagement with international students. Durden (2016) argued that
there is a need for campus leaders to pay closer attention to students, irrespective of
their religion, culture, or background. How can colleges and universities enhance their
students’ engagement level? This question has become of primary importance not
only to U.S. universities, but to schools in other nations as well. The purpose of this
study was to identify the ways that international undergraduate students become fully
engaged, compile a collection of their specific experiences, and determine any gaps in the
current literature. This study amassed information useful to educational administrators,
practitioners and researchers.
A systematic review of the literature on engaging international students was conducted
for this research. First, the review describes the literature in terms of the kinds of
research and analytical methods employed. Then, it highlights how and in what areas
international undergraduate students are currently engaged. It then summarizes certain
322 Wekullo
unique experiences of international undergraduate students who engage with campus life,
as reported in these studies. Next, this review presents a summary of the intervention
practices and concludes with implications for higher education administrators and
researchers regarding enhancing students’ levels of engagement and their overall college
experiences. This study focused on undergraduates because the transition to university
life can be particularly difficult to manage at that age. Also, there are likely to be
unique challenges and experiences encountered by these students while living in a foreign
country, from which stakeholders could learn.
Definitions of Terms
Student Engagement
This research used Kuh’s (2009) definition of student engagement: the “time and effort
students devote to activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of college,”
and “what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities” (p. 683).
This definition alone, however, left the concept of student engagement overly broad. It is
multifaceted and comprised of several dimensions. As a concept, Ashwin and McVitty
(2015) noted that student engagement serves the purposes of various stakeholders,
including students, educators, managers, and policymakers. Commenting on the ways
researchers have used the term, Ashwin and McVitty (2015) argued that the inconsistent
meaning of student engagement has made academics critical of the term. Therefore,
because of this broad view, Kahu (2013) stated that no single research project has examined
all of the dimensions of student engagement. However, focusing on the processes and
relationships involved will help us understand a single variable without denying the
existence of others or their importance in engaging students and meeting their needs.
This study focuses on the behavioral perspective of student engagement, where students
and their institutions devote themselves to meaningful educational activities that lead to
desired outcomes.
Higher Education Administrators

Higher education administrators are a group of individuals responsible for planning,
organizing, directing, controlling, and evaluating the activities of major academic units
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). This study used the term to
refer to individuals in charge of student services and who are frequently in contact with
students. These staff members may include administrative professionals in the offices
of international programs, resident life, student organizations, college departments, and
career centers, as well as counsellors, student health center staff, and faculty.
Research Method
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
guidelines were used to conduct the review for this study. PRISMA guidelines were deemed
appropriate for summarizing and identifying gaps in the literature on undergraduate
student engagement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009). The
Academic Search Ultimate, Psych INFO, Education Source, Humanities Source Ultimate,
Humanities Source, ERIC, and SocIndex databases were all systematically searched to
retrieve abstracts of potentially relevant studies. A further search of journals that publish
work on international students or issues in higher education was also conducted (i.e.,
Journal of International Students, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, and
Journal of Studies in International Education). A secondary search scrutinizing the
reference sections of the articles was carried out to ensure that all relevant and suitable
publications were included in the review. The search encompassed four concepts: (a)
international undergraduates, (b) engagement, (c) administrators or leaders, and (d)
higher education. Appendix A presents the search terms used in this study.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To ensure that the retrieved articles applied to the stated aims, inclusion and exclusion
criteria were established prior to conducting the systematic search. Retrieved studies were
restricted to those (a) published between 2007 and 2018 and (b) that were peer-reviewed
and empirically based. Articles were excluded from further review if (a) participants were
not international undergraduate students at a university or college, (b) the study method
was not presented in a manner clear enough to minimize the chance of misinterpretation,
or (c) the work did not report outcomes separately for undergraduate and graduate
students, especially when containing samples for both undergraduate and graduate or
host students. Thus, articles that did not specifically show a contribution to international
undergraduate student engagement were excluded.
The database and reference searches generated 987 publications, excluding duplicates.
Other searches identified another 44 articles. A total of 1,001 articles were further screened
for their relevance to the research topic. After reviewing the abstracts, 905 articles were
excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the articles, 40
studies were excluded because they did not report findings separately for undergraduate
and graduate students and/or non-international students. Additionally, eight studies
were excluded because they did not discuss the study’s methods or process for data
collection, and the trustworthiness of the findings could not be validated. The current
review summarizes the 48 articles on this topic from different perspectives.
Results
This section presents the findings of the literature review in five parts. The first includes
descriptive information regarding the literature. The second discusses the research
questions of how and in what areas international students are engaged. The third
addresses the research topic of the unique experiences of international students who
engage with campus life. The fourth presents interventions described in the literature,
and the fifth offers implications of the findings for higher education administrators and
future research topics related to enhancing international students’ levels of engagement
and their overall college experience.
324 Wekullo
Descriptive Information
Twenty of the 48 total articles included in the review were published using data from
the United States (n = 20, 42%). The remainder used data from Australia (n = 13,
27.1%), Canada (n = 5, 10.4%), the United Kingdom (n = 5, 10.4%), Hong Kong (n =
2, 4.2%), and Africa (n = 2, 4.2%). One study combined data from the US, Canada,
UK, and Australia. Although all of the research reviewed was published between 2007
and 2018, the vast majority (n = 35, 73%) were published after 2010. Among the 48
papers, the sample sizes ranged from one to 55,000, all focusing on international students.
Nineteen studies (40%) analyzed international students in general, including graduate
students. Seventeen studies (35.4%) compared international and native undergraduate
students, and twelve (25%) focused solely on international undergraduate students.
Furthermore, the analysis showed that six studies (13%) involved students in engineering
and physics. Two (4.2%) focused specifically on international black students, one in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines and the other in
athletics. The rest did not address a specific discipline. This literature informed the current
study’s understanding of international students’ engagement and experiences on foreign
campuses. Most studies (n = 27, 56.3%) used qualitative research methods for their study
design and data collection. Seventeen (35.4%) used a quantitative approach, and four
(8.3%) used a mixed-methods tactic. Twenty-three studies used surveys, 15 employed
semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and 10 included a combination of survey
interviews, archival data, and focus groups for data collection.
The majority of the studies used more than one type of analysis. Of the total 48,
15 (31.3%) used t tests and analysis of variances to examine the differences among
particular variables. Fourteen articles (29.2%) tested the associations between variables.
Nine studies (18.8%) conducted content analyses. Ten (20.8%) applied thematic analysis.
No study used specified qualitative approaches such as grounded theory. In sum, the
descriptive statistics show that international student engagement has increasingly gained
the attention of educational researchers, underscoring the importance of the present
review.
How and Where International Students are Engaged

Nine studies mentioned how students were being engaged. This literature showed
that international students’ engagement depended on their backgrounds (Bista, 2015;
Özturgut, 2013), majors (Glass & Gesing, 2018; Zhang, Robb, Eyerman, & Goodman,
2017), and institution types (Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Ozturgut, 2013; Van Horne et
al., 2018). The literature review provided evidence that a student’s background (i.e.,
ethnicity or country of origin) played a significant role in their level of engagement. George
Mwangi, Fries-Britt, Peralta, and Daoud (2016) examined the intra-racial dynamics of
student engagement and found that black international students were more engaged
in areas relating to academics, collaborative and service learning, and interactions with
faculty compared to other international students. The study pointed out that international
students from China and Korea perceived themselves as more intelligent than other
international students, so they were less likely to engage with others. Sam, Tetteh, and
Amponsah (2015) examined how international students in Ghana adapted and found that
students from Western countries were more psychologically prepared for the challenges
of studying in a foreign country. They turned what seemed like difficult academic and
cultural situations into positive opportunities for learning.
Grayson (2008) and Korobova and Starobin (2015) found that international students
were more involved in activities that led to high levels of learning (i.e., interacting with
students and faculty) and personal development (i.e., technology). Advancing this idea,
Zhang et al. (2017) examined activities that could increase the integration of international
students into their higher education environments. The authors found that international
students’ learning and engagement was high, with e-learning tools such as virtual worlds
and gamification being prominent. According to the authors, these collaborative social
activities were better than formal courses for improving language skills and international
students’ overall performances. Although there is no prerequisite knowledge for this type
of user, instructors are required to carefully plan if learners are to benefit from these
resources.
Other studies determined that international students were less engaged in campus
activities, which made them perceive the campus environment negatively (Glass, 2012;
Hsieh, 2007; Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Tsevi, 2018). Korobova and Starobin (2015)
compared the levels of student engagement and academic success of international
and native students and found that international students were less engaged in areas
such as writing papers or reports, tutoring other students (free or paid), participating
in community-based projects, working with faculty members on projects outside of
coursework, and doing internships and engaging in practical or field experiences.
According to Korobova and Starobin (2015), international students preferred activities that
featured interactions with other students.
This review has provided evidence that international students’ levels of engagement
differ by institution type (Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Van Horne et al., 2018). Furthermore,
Korobova and Starobin (2015) explained that students in private institutions operated on
the philosophy of “I deserve because I am paying for it,” while those in public institutions
were motivated more by the notion that “hard work pays.” The two diverging philosophies
determined the resources the institution allocated for student engagement.
Unique Experiences of International Students who Engage with Campus

Life
International undergraduate students reported uneven experiences, which can be
categorized into the following themes: social, academic, connectedness and identity, and
perceived discrimination. Below is a brief description of each.
Social Experiences
Twelve of the reviewed studies mentioned international students’ social experiences.
Studies reported that students who participated in on-campus social organizations
benefited from social support (Bowser, Danaher, & Somasundaram, 2007; Glass & Gesing,
2018; Hendrickson, 2018; Tsai & Wong, 2012; Van Horne et al., 2018). For example,
326 Wekullo
Bowser et al. (2007) analyzed a self-reported institutional survey of international students,

finding that by participating in social organizations (i.e., professional, religious, informal
recreational, and other student groups), international students made friends, which
helped improve their sense of belonging. Through these friendships, international
students benefited from assistance in planning their academic work, especially those
who were unfamiliar with the foreign country’s educational system (Hendrickson, 2018;
Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Tsai & Wong, 2012).
Conversely, some research reported that international students who lacked social
support were negatively affected both academically and psychologically by experiences
related to tension, depression, and confusion (Sato, Hodge, & Eckert, 2018; Tsai & Wong,
2012). However much international students tried, they found it challenging to establish
levels of social support in their host countries that were comparable to what they enjoyed
in their home countries. Similarly, Smith and Khawaja (2011), Young (2014), and Hsieh
(2007) argued that unfamiliarity with the host country’s social and learning expectations
often led to a lack of participation in both academic and non-academic activities by foreign
students. As a result, international students relied on each other to learn about social
and educational practices, and the expectations of host country classrooms. According
to a study by Rosenthal, Russell, and Thomson (2007), this kind of socializing pattern was
limiting to on-campus engagement. The researchers noted that being aware of these and
other differences among international students could help in establishing a multicultural
environment that would improve all students’ social experiences.
Academic Experiences
Eleven of the reviewed studies presented international students’ experiences related
to learning environment, language, and curricula. Kim et al. (2017) examined the
experiences of international undergraduate students at research universities in the US,
using data from the 2010 University of California undergraduate experience survey that
was distributed across 10 campuses. In that study, international students reported
lower levels of learning involvement in critical reasoning activities. Also, international
students expressed less satisfaction with the quality of instruction, academic advising, and
communications with faculty. Researchers such as Smith and Khawaja (2011), Lee and
Rice (2007), Eldaba (2016), Tsevi (2018), and Sato et al. (2018) also found that international
students struggled to adapt to the learning environments in their host countries. Lee
and Rice (2007) and Eldaba (2016) attributed this problem to difficulties in establishing
positive relationships with native peers, lecturers, and administrators. In most cases,
these students reported being accustomed to a teacher-centered form of learning, which
encouraged memorization and evaluation and required the reproduction of lecture notes
as a measure of learning. Hsieh (2007), in a narrative study, found that the nature of the
higher education setting disempowered international students. Students reported being
isolated and silenced in class, struggling to be acknowledged as intelligent despite their
hard work; they were often considered incompetent. These findings complemented those
of Glass (2012), Glass, Kociolek, Wongtrirat, Lynch, and Cong (2015), Van Horne et al.
(2018), and Smith and Khawaja (2011) who found that international students struggled
to adapt to the learning environment, and this discouraged them from getting involved in
on-campus activities.
In other studies, international students explained that language, especially academic
English, hindered them from participating in academic activities (Earnest, Joyce, de Mori,
& Silvagni, 2010; Eldaba, 2016). Advancing this idea, Eldaba (2016) used a logic model to
evaluate a program for international students’ social and academic development, finding
that students lacked confidence in their communication and listening abilities. Similarly,
Earnest et al. (2010) and Glass et al. (2015) found that a lack of proficiency in English kept
international undergraduate students from participating in class discussions. As a result,
this student group often opted to remain quiet unless asked to participate. Sometimes they
did so because they felt that their contributions were not respected or properly taken into
consideration (Hsieh, 2007). Other concerns ranged from worrying about failing exams
(Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2010; Korobova & Starobin, 2015) and challenging pedagogies
(Bista, 2015; Bowser et al., 2007) to feeling embarrassed when unable to answer a question
or participate in class (Earnest et al., 2010).
In three studies, lack of academic support and inclusive curricula were mentioned as
problems international students faced in foreign countries (Bourn, 2011; Grayson, 2008;
Van Gyn, Schuerholz-Lehr, Caws, & Preece, 2009). Each study highlighted that a lack of
academic and social support affected these students’ overall performance. For example,
Grayson (2008) evaluated the relationship between experiences and objectively measured
self-assessment outcomes, finding that even though international students were equally
involved in campus activities, they lacked academic support as compared to native
students. According to the author, academic experiences explained more of the variance in
self-assessment than did the objectively measured outcomes. Moreover, in studies by Van
Gyn et al. (2009) and Earnest et al. (2010), international students described the teaching
they received as including little consideration of international topics. In particular, Earnest
et al. (2010) analyzed the ways institutions responded to the needs of students from diverse
backgrounds, finding that support systems and programs for international students were
inadequate. Earnest et al. (2010) and Van Gyn et al. (2009) determined that professionals
lacked the pedagogical knowledge and skills needed to make sophisticated changes
reflecting a comprehensive implementation of an inclusive curriculum. Even though
the foreign learning culture might promote a more equitable environment, the findings
of a study by Kim et al. (2017) showed that international students experienced college
differently, and needed extra time to understand the requirements and conventions in
their new learning environments.
Contrary to the above findings, studies by Korobova and Starobin (2015), Glass and
Gesing (2018), and Bista (2015) reported that international students participating in on-
campus activities were enriched by their educational experiences. For instance, Bista
(2015) used a sample of 705 to analyze Asian international students’ relationships with
faculty, peers, and administrative staff. The author found a small positive correlation
between Asian students’ involvement and the five domains of learning (i.e., personal
development, science and technology, general education, vocational preparation, and
intellectual skills). According to Bista, differences in learning styles, writing patterns,
and academic expectations in native and international classrooms posed problems
328 Wekullo
for international students. Bista also pointed to four factors that were crucial in
determining the quality of learning experiences for international students in new
academic environments: gender, academic level, length of stay, and country of origin.
For instance, Bista found that students who lived in their host country for 1 year or less
reported lower learning gains than did students spending 2 or more years in their host
environments. Also, undergraduate students had lower gains in learning compared to
graduate students, and students from regions such as East Asia had lower gains in learning
compared to those from Southeast, Central, and South Asia. The study findings suggest
that international students need to cope with preconceived notions and habits when
getting used to their new academic environments.
Self-Connectedness
Ten studies mentioned that international students experienced a feeling of self-
connectedness. In these studies, self-connectedness referred to the way international
students came together and interacted (Cole & Zhou, 2014; Hirai, Frazier, & Syed, 2015;
Rosenthal, Russell, & Thomson, 2007; Tsevi, 2018). Connectedness or disconnectedness
not only directs individuals’ feeling, thoughts, and behaviors in social situations, but also
determines one’s self-esteem (Glass et al., 2015; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Tran & Vu, 2016;
Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia, 2008; Spiro, 2014; Van Horne et al., 2018)
and may influence their satisfaction with their academic environment (Geary, 2015; Tran
& Pham, 2016; Tran & Vu, 2016). Rosenthal et al. (2007) used a sample of 979 from
a large university in Australia to examine international students’ perceptions of social
connectedness. Rosenthal and colleagues pointed to four aspects of social connectedness
among students: (a) connectedness related to students’ communication skills and cultural
background; (b) social mixing and interactions with co-cultural groups; (c) involvement in
organizations, associations, and groups; and (d) connections to home and family. The
majority of the students reported helping others in Melbourne; however, some desired
increased personal support from those who knew and cared about them as individuals.
A study by Cole and Zhou (2014) showed that self-connectedness can be achieved
through multicultural interactions. Glass, Gesing, Hales, and Cong (2017) and Cole
and Zhou (2014) found that multicultural interactions have a substantial impact on
educational settings, both academically and socially (i.e., improving connectedness).
However, this opportunity is not being fully exploited on campuses. Advancing this
idea, Urban and Palmer (2014) examined the extent to which international students were
utilized as cultural resources, and how this affected their perception of the value of the
academic experiences they received from U.S. institutions. The authors found that these
students were not actively involved as cultural resources even though they wanted to
do more to help others understand their home countries and cultures. Furthermore,
Urban and Palmer explained that diverse interactions depended on structural diversity
and certain institutional characteristics. Urban and Palmer’s study underscored a need to
reexamine the institutional structures and features that might hinder diversity in student
relationships. These studies challenge both institutions and international students to help
develop approaches that allow multicultural interactions, as well as support.
Social Identity
Several studies showed that social identity had a positive impact on academic
performance, mental health, and well being during international students’ life transitions
(Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, & Hendres, 2011; Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009). In
one study, Bliuc and colleagues (2011) explored the relationships among students’ social
identities, academic achievement, and approaches to learning, employing two scales:
surface and deep approaches to learning. Using a sample of 183 health psychology
students, Bliuc et al. found that deep approaches to learning were positively associated
with students’ social identities and positively predicted academic achievement, whereas
the opposite was found in surface learning approaches. The study further suggested that
students’ social identities determined their future professional identification. Haslam
et al. (2009) reached the same conclusion. Haslam and colleagues used a sample of
237 international students in Australia to test hypotheses regarding social changes and
international students’ life transitions. The authors found that students who maintained
their social identities in the context of life transitioning had good health and well being,
and reported higher levels of academic performance.
Other studies have reported that international students who interacted with their
learning and living environments facilitated changes in their lives. They developed strong
personal identities, a sense of agency, and resilience by recognizing their unique cultural
traits when they encountered different practices in their host countries (Gu et al., 2010;
Pham & Saltmarsh, 2013). Pham and Saltmarsh (2013) further reported that despite feeling
abnormal, most international students reported negotiating their identities by acquiring
and embracing attributes of their host countries that allowed them to achieve their
academic goals. On the contrary, studies such as those of Tsai and Wong (2012) and Gu et
al. (2010) argued that international students lost their social identities and felt powerless.
This challenge further contributed to international students’ loss of professional identity
(Gu et al., 2010). As stated by Tsai and Wong (2012), this feeling manifested more in
administrative hurdles related to learning and in dealing with protocols such as health
care and financial issues, which reinforced their feeling of being outsiders.
Perceived Discrimination
Three studies pointed to international students’ experiences of discrimination.
Wadsworth, Hecht, and Jung (2008), Hsieh (2007), Smith and Khawaja (2011), and Van
Horne et al. (2018) all reported that discrimination affected international students’ sat-
isfaction with their academic programs and social relations. In particular, perceived
discrimination kept international students from forming and maintaining social net-
works, as well as participating in on-campus activities; these experiences directly and
indirectly affected their learning outcomes. Studies by George Mwangi et al. (2016) and
Lee and Rice (2007) argued that perceived discrimination against international students
varied depending on gender, degree objective, and region of origin. Lee and Rice found
that most students from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East experienced at
least some discrimination, whereas learners from Canada, Europe, and Australia did not.
In a study of 24 black undergraduate and graduate students in physics, George Mwangi et
330 Wekullo
al. found that black international students had different educational experiences resulting
from race and nationality. The findings of that study suggest that students of color, and
in particular black students, felt significant racial tension on campus, dealt with preju-
dice or discrimination from their peers and faculty, and experienced more pressure to
conform to stereotypes. Similarly, Siczek (2015) found that international students were
often stereotyped based on assumptions about their linguistic or cultural backgrounds
and other differences.
Interventions to Better Engage International Students

The interventions reported in the literature can be categorized into four subgroups:
academic, social support, self-identity and connectedness, and discrimination. Many
of the reviewed studies suggested two or more interventions; for example, increasing
academic and social engagement and experiences could comprise one or more of the
individual interventions, as presented in Appendix B. The interventions discussed in this
section aim at increasing international students’ engagement in academic and social
activities, improving their self-identity and connectedness, and preventing discrimination
in campus environments.
Academic Support and Engagement

Several of the interventions focused on increasing academic support for and the
engagement of international students. The intervention actions included increasing
engagement opportunities (George Mwangi et al., 2016; Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Van
Horne et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017) in areas in which international students are most
often engaged, and building staff capacity through campus training, workshops, faculty
learning communities, and new faculty orientations, where educators can exchange ideas
and concerns regarding engaging international students (George Mwangi et al., 2016; Gu et
al., 2010; Lee & Rice, 2007; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Rogers-Sirin & Sirin, 2009; Rosenthal
et al., 2007; Smith & Khawaja, 2011). Other studies suggested building students’ capacity
to establish positive relationships with peers, faculty, and administrators (Eldaba, 2016;
Hsieh, 2007; Lee & Rice, 2007; Sawir et al., 2008; Urban & Palmer, 2014; Tsevi, 2018).
Other researchers have suggested creating awareness of existing support services
and programs designed for international students as ways of facilitating their overall
success (Brunsting, Zachry, & Takeuchi, 2018; Kenyon, Frohard-Dourlent, & Roth, 2012;
Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Sato et al., 2018; Tsai & Wong, 2012). Similarly, Korobova
and Starobin (2015) and Earnest et al. (2010) proposed that institutions consider
conducting special intensive orientation sessions and multiple summer bridge programs
to support successful transitioning into the new academic environment. Acknowledging
that institutions have already established programs for these students, Eldaba (2016) and
Geary (2016) suggested evaluating and upgrading programs designed for international
social and academic development.
Social Support
Surprisingly, most of the interventions involving social support targeted institutions
investing more resources in activities supporting students’ adjustment. Three studies
focused on creating a multicultural environment within which students could freely
interact (Brunsting et al., 2018; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Young, 2014) as a strategy for
increasing their social support. Two other studies suggested creating awareness of the
social support services available on campus (Kenyon et al., 2012; Tsai & Wong, 2012).
Improving Self-identity and Connectedness

Table A1 in the appendix presents the range of interventions that emerged from the
literature. These interventions were categorized into five areas, as follows: (a) creating
more intimate social activities that could bridge the gap between local and international
students (Rosenthal et al., 2007); (b) providing incentives for native students to encourage
them to volunteer as conversation mentors to international students (Eldaba, 2016; Lee
& Rice, 2007; Sawir et al., 2008; Urban & Palmer, 2014; (c) improving publicity for social
events to increase interactions among students of different nationalities (Spiro, 2014); (d)
modifying course content and class activities to be more inclusive of international cultures
(Gu et al., 2010; Lee & Rice, 2007; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Smith
& Khawaja, 2011); and (e) organizing university trips/functions that would encourage
student interaction because of shared connections from being at the same institution
(Hirai et al., 2015; Rosenthal et al., 2007). The focus was on improving students’ self-
identity and connectedness.
Preventing Discrimination
Another cluster of interventions, those dealing with perceived discrimination, was
reported as an obstacle hindering international students from actively participating in
on-campus activities. The researchers proposed creating campus events that would help
integrate students and create awareness of the challenging environment international
students faced (George Mwangi et al., 2016; Lee & Rice, 2007; Rosenthal et al., 2007;
Sawir et al., 2008; Wadsworth et al., 2008). Siczek (2015) proposed ongoing professional
development activities regarding how to respond to culturally and linguistically diverse
students. This would improve these students’ sense of belonging and enhance their
confidence when engaging in on-campus activities.
Discussions and Conclusions

A review of 48 articles was conducted to better understand the current state of the literature
and identify the gaps regarding international undergraduate students’ engagement and
experiences. The study compiled information that will be useful for both practitioners
and students. One of the key findings was the low percentage (25%) of studies focusing
solely on international undergraduate students. Most considered international students
in general or compared international students with native learners. This finding is similar
to that of de Araujo (2011). The lack of separation between undergraduates and graduates
international from native learners may hinder efforts to improve engagement.
332 Wekullo
The ways students became engaged and the areas attracting them varied depending
on the student’s background, major, race/ethnicity, and type of institution. Even so, the
literature was inconsistent with regards to the areas in which international students were
most engaged. Whereas some studies showed that international undergraduate students
were more involved in activities that led to high levels of learning (i.e., interacting with
other students and faculty) and personal development (i.e., technology; Grayson, 2008;
Korobova & Starobin, 2015), others showed that students were less engaged in academic
activities (Hsieh, 2007; Korobova & Starobin, 2015).
The literature provided evidence that international students had uneven experiences
relating to social and academic topics, as well as networks and perceived discrimination.
These experiences varied depending on factors such as region (Bista, 2015; George Mwangi
et al., 2016; Lee & Rice, 2007; Sam, 2015), length of stay in the host country (Bista, 2015;
Van Horne et al., 2018), competence level, academic program, and quality of interpersonal
relationships with members of their organization and community (Hsieh, 2007; Kenyon
et al., 2012; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Tsai & Wong, 2012). While these factors may have
significant effects on international students’ participation in on-campus activities and
their overall academic success, there was a lack of demonstrated effort to factor them in to
international student programming and planning; in other cases, they were underutilized
Several interventions were described for higher education administrators to better
serve international undergraduate students in the ever-changing campus environment.
Some of the common interventions listed include: (a) facilitating regular professional
development training for faculty, staff, and students to communicate regarding the
significance of creating an inclusive learning environment for all (Gu et al., 2010; Lee
& Rice, 2007; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Sato et al., 2018; Smith
& Khawaja, 2011); (b) creating awareness of the university support services available
to international students and their usefulness (Hsieh, 2007; Kenyon et al., 2012; Tsai
& Wong, 2012); (c) formalizing peer support learning and mentoring for international
students (Rosenthal et al., 2007); and (d) providing a broad range of content that includes
multicultural elements for promoting student interactions.
In conclusion, engaging international student does not necessarily improve their
experiences in foreign institutions; rather, there are multiple factors that need to
be considered. The findings suggest that adjustment takes time, and international
students require significant support from their host institutions. This work challenges
institutional leaders to recognize the diverse needs of international students and suggests
that institutions of higher education reexamine the ways they currently engage these
types of learners; also, if possible, programs should change to accommodate students’
evolving needs. Administrators should embrace an infusion approach that requires
staff to accumulate new knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values by understanding their
international students’ unique experiences.
Implications
Implications for Higher Education Administrators and International
Students
The literature indicated that institutions have put in place mechanisms for engaging
international students, but it was also clear that students’ backgrounds, majors, and types
of institution cannot be overlooked as considerable factors in their level of engagement,
sense of belonging, and overall achievement. The results are significant for informing
higher education administrators on the areas in which international students are more
and less engaged, and the need for further investment in areas that would increase
their participation and support their success. Moreover, the findings that international
students’ engagement differed by type of institution has significant implications for
higher education administrators; they should conduct regular needs assessments of their
international students to adjust their programming strategies to promote engagement of
a diverse student population.
The uneven experiences of undergraduate students also have important implications
for higher education administrators; they should endeavor to develop a more holistic
understanding of the unique experiences of international students and factor them into
their programming. International students have different needs and require a variety
of patterns of engagement. Having a comprehensive grasp of the experiences of these
students will help to clarify their expectations and assist in planning and allocating
resources; it will also minimize some of the uncertainty and academic stress related to
university life.
The various interventions highlighted in previous studies indicated that solely having
an international program in place is not sufficient. There is a need to continually
invest financial and human resources in these types of programs. Moreover, various
interventions have suggested that there is a need to involve various stakeholders, ranging
from top administrators to faculty, researchers, host students, and the community, as well
as the international students themselves, to improve the experiences and engagement
levels of international undergraduate students. Based on the findings of Brunsting et
al. (2018) and Sato et al. (2018), international undergraduate students also have a role
to play in improving their level of engagement. They need to be proactive, seek more
intense academic challenges, plan meaningful interactions with faculty, staff, and other
students, improve their connectedness by engaging in serious conversations with students
from other races, regions, and personal backgrounds, participate in practical and field
experiences, and get more involved in the learning community and community service
to improve their overall academic experience.
Implications for Future Research

The differences among international students in terms of backgrounds, countries of origin,
competence levels, self-identities, and majors highlights the need for further examination
of how these factors might affect overall engagement and performance, as well as how
experiences might compare as students transition to foreign institutions. Future research
334 Wekullo
should investigate the ways international students react to their particular issues and
experiences.
Some studies have noted that although institutions have implemented programs
for international students, there is a lack of research that adequately examines the
effectiveness of these programs and makes connections between practice and research
and/or theory and practice. Based on the current study’s findings, a model is needed for
evaluating the effectiveness of programs for international students across institutions of
higher learning. Although this study focused only on undergraduates, the literature was
obtained from various nations that admit international students. Therefore, the findings
could be generalized to all institutions with international students.
References
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.
Araujo, A. A. (2011). Adjustment issues of international students enrolled in American
colleges and universities: A review of the literature. Higher Education Studies, 1, 2–8.
Ashwin, P. & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: implications for
policies and practices. In Curaj, A., Matei, L., Pricopie, R., Salmi, J., & Scott, P., editors,
The European higher education area, pages 343–359, New York. Springer Open.
Bista, K. (2015). Asian international students’ college experience: Relationship between
quality of personal contact and gains in learning. Journal of International and Global
Studies Volume, 6(2), 39.
Bliuc, A. M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. M. (2011). The role of social
identification as university student in learning: Relationships between students’ social
identity, approaches to learning, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology,
31(5), 559–574.
Bourn, D. (2011). From internationalisation to global perspectives. Higher Education
Research & Development, 30(5), 559–571.
Bowser, D., Danaher, P. A., & Somasundaram, J. (2007). Indigenous, pre-undergraduate
and international students at. Education, 12(5–6), 669–681.
Brunsting, N. C., Zachry, C., & Takeuchi, R. (2018). Predictors of undergraduate
international student psychosocial adjustment to US universities: A systematic review
from 2009–2018. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66, 22–33.
Cole, D. & Zhou, J. (2014). Do diversity experiences help college students become more
civically minded? Applying Banks’ multicultural education framework. Innovative
Durden, W. G. (2016). No longer bystanders. Inside.
Earnest, J., Joyce, A., Mori, G., & Silvagni, G. (2010). Are universities responding to the
needs of students from refugee backgrounds? Australian Journal of Education, 54(2),
155–174.
Eldaba, A. (2016). An innovative model to design an academic and social development
program for international college students. College Student Journal, 50(2), 171–178.
Geary, D. (2016). How do we get people to interact? International students and the
American experience. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 527.
Glass, C. R. (2012). Educational experiences associated with international students’

learning, development, and positive perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 16, 228–251.
Glass, C. R. & Gesing, P. (2018). The development of social capital through international
students’ involvement in campus organizations. Journal of International Students, 8(3),
1274–1292.
Glass, C. R., Gesing, P., Hales, A., & Cong, C. (2017). Faculty as bridges to co-curricular
engagement and community for first-generation international students. volume 42.
experiences: The impact of student-faculty interactions on international students’ sense
of belonging. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353–367.
Grayson, J. P. (2008). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international
students at four Canadian universities. Higher Education Research and Development,
27(3), 215–230.
Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a ‘foreign’ context:
Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare, 40(1), 7–23.
Gyn, G. V., Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., & Preece, A. (2009). Education for world-
mindedness: Beyond superficial notions of internationalization. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 118, 25–38.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-
being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23.
Hendrickson, B. (2018). Intercultural connectors: Explaining the influence of extra-
curricular activities and tutor programs on international student friendship network
development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 63, 1–16.
Hirai, R., Frazier, P., & Syed, M. (2015). Psychological and sociocultural adjustment of
first-year international students: Trajectories and predictors. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 62(3), 438–452.
Horne, S. V., Lin, S., Anson, M., & Jacobson, W. (2018). Engagement, satisfaction, and
belonging of international undergraduates at US research universities. Journal of
Hsieh, M. H. (2007). Challenges for international students in higher education: One
student’s narrated story of invisibility and struggle. College Student Journal, 41(2), 379–
391.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. volume 38.
Kenyon, K., Frohard-Dourlent, H., & Roth, W. D. (2012). Falling between the
cracks: Ambiguities of international student status in Canada. Revue Canadienne
d’Enseignement Supérieur, 42(1), 1–24.
Korobova, N. & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement,
satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student
engagement? Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
336 Wekullo
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). The PRISMA. PLoS Med, 6(7),
1000097.
Mwangi, C. A. G., Fries-Britt, S., Peralta, A. M., & Daoud, N. (2016). Examining intraracial
dynamics and engagement between native-born and foreign-born Black collegians in
STEM. Journal of Black Studies, 47(7), 773–794.
Özturgut, O. (2013). Best practices in recruiting and retaining international students.
volume 16.
Özturgut, O. & Murphy, C. (2009). Literature vs. practice: challenges for international
students in the US. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
22(3), 374–385.
Pham, L. & Saltmarsh, D. (2013). International students’ identities in a globalized world:
Narratives from Vietnam. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(2), 129–141.
students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
34(1), 28–46.
Rosenthal, D. A., Russell, J., & Thomson, G. (2007). Social connectedness among
international students at an Australian university. Social Indicators Research, 84(1), 71–
82.
Ross, H. & Chen, Y. (2015). Engaging Chinese international undergraduate students in the
American university. Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 13.
Sam, D. L., Tetteh, D. K., & Amponsah, B. (2015). Satisfaction with life and psychological
symptoms among international students in Ghana and their correlates. International
Sato, T., Hodge, S. R., & Eckert, K. (2018). Experiences of international student-athletes at
a historically black university. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 696–723.
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness
and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(2), 148–180.
Siczek, M. M. (2015). Developing global competency in US higher education:
Contributions of International Students. CATESOL Journal, 27(2), 5–21.
Spiro, J. (2014). Learning interconnectedness: Internationalisation through engagement
with one another. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 65–84.
Telbis, N. M., Helgeson, L., & Kingsbury, C. (2014). International students’ confidence and
academic success. Journal of International Students, 4(4), 330–341.
Tran, L. T. & Pham, L. (2016). International students in transnational mobility: Intercultural
connectedness with domestic and international peers, institutions and the wider
community. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(4),
560–581.
Tran, L. T. & Vu, T. T. P. (2016). ‘I’m not like that, why treat me the same way?’ The impact of
stereotyping international students on their learning, employability and connectedness
with the workplace. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(2), 203–220.
Tsai, P. C. & Wong, Y. J. (2012). Chinese and Taiwanese international college students’
participation in social organizations: Implications for college counseling professionals.
Journal of College Counseling, 15(2), 144–156.
Tsevi, L. (2018). Survival strategies of international undergraduate students at a public
research midwestern university in the United States: A case study. Journal of
International Students, 2(1034–1058).
18(4), 305–324.
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination,
and acculturation. Communication Education, 57(1), 64–87.
Young, N. E. (2014). Seeking best practices for integrating international and domestic
students.
Zhang, B., Robb, N., Eyerman, J., & Goodman, L. (2017). Virtual worlds and gamification to
increase integration of international students in higher education: An inclusive design
approach. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 32(2), 2292–8588.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and
American student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 76(2), 209–231.
Author biography
Caroline Sabina Wekullo is a PhD candidate in the College of Education and Human
Development, Higher Education Administration program, Texas A&M University. Her
major research interests lie in the area of college student access and achievement, policy
issues in financing of higher education, and leadership development in higher education.

Volume 9, Issue 1 (2019), 338–361
DOI: 10.32674/jis.v9i1.259
ojed.org/jis
Opinions of International Students on

Choosing a State University in a
Developing Country
Adnan Boyacia and Yakup Ozb
Abstract: In this study, factors affecting the college choice of international students (CCIS)
are investigated based on the opinions of international students at a state university (Anadolu
University) in Turkey. A case study design is employed and opinions of students are analyzed
in accordance with whether they are scholarship or non-scholarship students. In the findings,
three main themes emerge; intent to study abroad, choosing to study in Turkey, and choosing
to study at Anadolu University. These themes cover several factors affecting the CCIS. In this
regard, there are no critical differences between the factors affecting the opinions of scholarship
and non-scholarship students. However, some factors could differentiate in accordance with the
background characteristics of the students and whether they are from high-income or non-high-
income countries.
Introduction
The college choice of international students (CCIS) has become a popular research field
in higher education since international student mobility has become a movement in
recent decades. If the number of international students is estimated at 8 million (Altbach,
2004), and they are all taken as at least undergraduate students and then the overall
expenses (tuition fees, accommodation, education books/equipment, food and etc.) for
undergraduate education are estimated as approximately 71,000 U.S. dollars (Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation [HSBC], 2017), the total market value of international
higher education can be calculated to be around 568 billion dollars by 2025. In this regard,
CCIS can be regarded as an essential part of student mobility in the international higher
education market (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2016). Therefore, an examination of factors
associated with how international students choose colleges is crucial.
a Department of Educational Science, Anadolu University.

b Department of Educational Science, Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University.
Corresponding authors: adnanboyaci2100@gmail.com (Adnan Boyaci),

yakupoz573@yahoo.com (Yakup Oz)
Opinions of International Students 339
The aim of this study is to investigate factors leading international students to choose
to study in a developing country. In this regard, this research is a case study focusing
on the factors affecting the process of international students choosing to study in a state
university in Turkey. According to the international students’ report of the Ministry of
Development (2015), international students are defined as “foreign national students in
the Turkish Republic, having student visas or special permits to study at any level of
education and training, with or without a scholarship” (p. 18). The same definition is
also used in this study. Most literature on CCIS focuses mostly on developed, high-income
countries like the US, the UK, and Australia (Bodycott, 2009; Chen, 2007; Maringe, & Carter,
2007; Mazzarol, & Soutar 2002; McCarthy, Sen, & Fox Garrity, 2012; Pimpa, 2003), which
are among the top destinations for international students, with a high number of top-
ranked colleges. This study contributes to understanding international students’ choices
of colleges in developing and upper middle-income countries.
Literature Review
Theories on CCIS
Theories related to the CCIS are a combination of college choice theories for domestic
students and migration theories. Considering the college choice of domestic students,
sociological models come first. These models focus on how students’ social and
psychological structures influence the choice of higher education institutions (Hossler,
Schmit, & Vesper, 1999; McDonough, 1997; Plank, & Jordan, 2001). These models
investigate the effect of socioeconomic status, family conditions, school environment,
individual characteristics, and school adjustment on college choice (Hossler et al., 1999;
Paulsen, 1990). However, students are not just affected by surrounding factors; they
investigate the costs and benefits of going to college as rational actors, proposed by
economic models (Kotler & Fox, 1985). Before they attend a college, they analyze their job
preferences, potential earnings or benefits of post-graduation, fees, accommodation, and
separation from family and friends (Hossler et al., 1999; McDonough, 1997). In this way,
the college choice process follows certain steps, such as need arousal, information search,
evolution of alternatives, decision implementation, and post-purchase evolution (Kotler
& Fox, 1985). These two different perspectives on college choice are gathered together
in combined models assuming that the choice of the college is an incremental process
rather than a single decision (Hossler et al., 1999). This process consists of three stages:
predisposition, search, and choice. Predisposition is the tendency of a student to go to
college or not. In the search stage, there is interaction between the student and institutions
as students seek information about the colleges. In the third stage, students choose a
specific college by evaluating their choice set that they prepared, based on the information
from the second stage (Hossler & Gallaghar, 1987).
With CCIS, migration theories come to the forefront (Lee, 1966). Push and pull factors
for a country play an essential role in students’ decisions as to whether or not to go
abroad for higher education. The prestige of the foreign colleges, career opportunities
after graduation, and opportunities offered by the host country to international students
are among the pulling factors, while different obstacles, such as low quality of education
340 Boyaci and Oz
and political or economic turmoil in the country are examples of the pushing factors
(Altbach, 2004; Mazzarol & Soutar 2002; McMahon, 1992). Mazzaroul and Soutar (2002)
examined the process of college choice in three stages: deciding to study internationally
or nationally, selection of the host country, and selection of the institution. Pushing
and pulling factors are more related to the second stage, considering the economic and
political forces in the home country, and various attractive forces in the host country.
However, CCIS cannot be devoted only to the pushing and pulling factors, considering
the outgoing students from developed, high-income countries, not experiencing any
political or economic turmoil, or having a good quality higher education. Sociological and
economic models still need to be taken into consideration. Chen (2007) proposed a model
that is a synthesis of the combined models including the three-phase model of Hossler and
Gallaghar (1987) and (Neice & Braun, 1977), and push and pull factors (Mazzarol, & Soutar,
2002). This synthesis model is more likely based on econometric and marketing models
with a closer look at sociological models and social capital theory. The model elaborates
the choice process into three stages: deciding to study abroad, choosing the host country,
and choosing the institution. In each stage, student characteristics, significant others, and
external push–pull factors affect students’ decisions (Chen, 2007, s. 760).
Internationalization of Higher Education in a Turkish Context

Turkey has a history of internationalization of higher education from the late Ottoman
period. Modernization efforts and the negative results of wars made Ottoman officials
renew the army and, for the first time, they established military schools. In these schools,
there were foreign commanders responsible for the training of students. During World
War II, a number of scholars who had escaped from Germany joined the government
institutions and the academic staff of universities (Kirisci, 2000; Reisman, 2007). Since
1827, during the rule of Sultan Mahmud II, selected students have been provided with a
government scholarship to take higher education abroad (Aslan, 2014), which is also an
ongoing tradition in the modern Turkish Republic.
Despite such a long history of outgoing student and incoming faculty mobility,
an intensive internationalization movement started only later. A new basis for
internationalization emerged in the 1990s and 2000s with the Bologna Process, consisting
of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), the diploma supplement, the Erasmus
agreements. However, steps to attract international students are still relatively new for
Turkey. These steps can be specified in the following three items:
1. The Grand Student Project:This project was started in 1992 for students in states
established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, it then spread to
57 states or communities. Within the project, between 1992–2008, 27,112 students
received scholarships (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2009).
2. The Mevlana Exchange Program:Turkey established its own international student
exchange program named Mevlana in 2011. This program covers bilateral
agreements with higher institutions throughout the world, except for European
Union member countries, since Turkey is already a part of the Erasmus Program.
3. Türkiye Scholarships:Turkey recently established this scholarship program for inter-

national students and faculty members under the supervision of the Precedency for
Turks Abroad and Related Communities. This program has operated since 2010, with
16,000 students being provided with scholarships in 105 universities (Türkiye Schol-
arships).
In Turkey, there has been no significant fluctuation in the total number of international
students since the beginning of the Grand Student Project up to 2008. However, the
number of incoming international students has started to increase in recent years. There
were approximately 48,000 international students in 2013, with 80% of these studying
at state universities, and 60% living in metropolitan cities like Istanbul, Ankara, and
Izmir (Ministry of Development, 2015). According to the Higher Education Information
Management System (HEIMS) data, the total number of international students, including
exchanges, was 108,076 in 2017 (HEIMS).
Such an increase in the number of international students in the last 5 years is mainly the
result of two important factors. The first is the political support for internationalization,
because the internationalization for Turkish higher education is considered as soft power
in international politics (Kaya, 2014). Unlike hard power, soft power implies that other
actors change their behaviors in line with the power-holder preferences, not by making
a cost-benefit calculation or by being forced to do so, but they view the power-holder’s
actions or demands are legitimate. In this regard, civilian means of power are more
preferable rather than military aspects of power (Oğuzlu, 2007). Hence educational,
cultural or economic ties among countries are more valuable resources for creating soft
power and affecting each other in the international arena. According to the president of
the Council of Higher Education (CoHE), such an increase in the number of international
students in the last 5 years is the result of planned action, and for the next 5 years the
aim is to reach 200,000 international students without exchanges, as declared in the
2018–2022 Internationalization Strategy Document (Saraç, 2017). The second is Turkey’s
natural capacity for internationalization. According to Kondakci (2010), Turkey has a
distinct process in the internationalization of higher education for four main reasons.
First, Turkey’s geopolitical position is a natural bridge between East and West, and
this position makes for easier access to developed industrial countries for international
students. Second, Turkey has an Anglo-Saxon higher education system, which enables
degree equivalencies, meeting EU standards and international cooperation between
higher education institutions. Third, Turkey has historical and cultural bonds between the
Balkans, North Africa, the Middle East, Caucasia, and Central Asia, providing an important
position in the region. Last is the macroeconomic capacity of Turkey that provides
engagement with western economies. International students have a chance to find job
opportunities both in Turkey and western countries by studying in such an economically,
academic, politically, and geographically engaged country.
Anadolu Universityand the International Students

Anadolu University was established in 1958. It has two campuses including 17 faculties
(colleges/schools/departments at undergraduate level), with three of these offering
342 Boyaci and Oz
distance education. These three faculties consisted of almost three million students in the
2016–2017 educational year (HEIMS), which makes Anadolu University one of the largest
universities by enrollment in the world.
Anadolu University is also effective in bilateral agreements and exchange programs.
The Office for International Affairs was founded to carry out the internationalization
process of Anadolu University in 2003. The Office for International Affairs provides service
on Erasmus and Mevlana student exchange programs, European Voluntary Service, dual
degree programs, and international co-operation protocols with other higher education
institutions. There have been 55 protocols, 508 agreements, 3,269 outgoing and 1,224
incoming students, and 1,279 outgoing and 374 incoming members of staff leading up to
2016.
Between 2013 and 2017, there was a 130% increase in the total number of international
students, with a total of 4,778 international students in 2017 (HEIMS). Anadolu University
is also listed among the top ranked 1,000 universities by the Times Higher Education
World Rankings in 2018, and it is the 17th university in Turkey according to the same scale
(Anadolu University).
Research Method
In this research, the embedded single-case study design was applied, considering the
target case consists of two groups of international students: international students with
scholarships and those without. A case study is “a detailed examination of one setting,
or one single subject, or one single depository of documents or one particular event”
(Bogdan&Biklen, 1992, p. 62), within its real-life context and in which multiple sources
of evidence exist (Fraenkel &Wallen, 2008).
Regarding multiple sources of evidence about the process of CCIS, we only used semi-
structured interviews, mainly because we conducted the research after students were
already admitted to Anadolu University. So, we couldn’t have a chance to benefit from
various data collecting techniques like observations or participant diaries. This is one of
the limitations of this study. However, a case study also requires the analysis of a bounded
system (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009), which is in this case, the academic and social
environment of Anadolu University. Moreover, the last stage of the hierarchical college
choice process is the selection of the college, figuring out the discussion related to theories
on the CCIS. In this regard, this research is automatically limited to the context of the
Anadolu University, and the results are naturally constrained by the unique characteristics
of it. Hence, when this qualitative research was designed as a case study, the uniqueness
of Anadolu University as a bounded system was on the forefront, despite the limitation of
a single data-collecting technique.
Participants
There are 21 participants in the study. Fifteen of these are scholarship and six are non-
scholarship international students. Table 1 reresents the characteristics of the participants.
All names are coded as P1, P2, . . . P21, where P is for the participant.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants
Country/ Income Student Departments Class

Geographic type type Gender
location
P1 Turkmenistan Upper- NS Architecture Senior
Central Asia middle Male
P2 Kyrgyzstan Lower- S Economics Senior
P3 Azerbaijan Upper- NS Computer Education & Soph.
Western Asia middle Instructional Technology Male
P4 Mauritania Lower- S Journalism Senior
Western Africa middle Male
P5 Colombia Upper- S Architecture Junior
South America middle Female
P6 France High NS English Language Teach- Junior
Western Europe ing Female
P7 Afghanistan Low NS English Language Teach- Junior
Southern Asia ing Female
P8 Iraq Upper- S Cinema and Television Soph.
Western Asia middle Male
P9 Indonesia Lower- S Business Administration Freshman
Southeastern Asia middle
Female
P10 Turkmenistan Upper- NS History Senior
P11 Yemen Low S Sociology Junior
Western Asia Male
P12 Afghanistan Low S Environmental Engineer- Soph.
Southern Asia ing Male
P13 Sudan Lower- NS Electrical & Electronics Senior
Northern Africa middle Engineering Male
P14 Ukraine Lower- S Journalism Junior
Eastern Europe middle Female
P15 Kazakhstan Upper- S Cinema & Television Junior
Central Asia middle Female
P16 Somali Low S Sociology Senior
Eastern Africa Male
P17 Myanmar Lower- S Chemistry Junior
Southeastern Asia middle Female
P18 Chad Low S Chemical Engineering Junior
Middle Africa Male
Continued on next page
344 Boyaci and Oz
Table 1 continued
Country/ Income Student Departments Class
Geographic type type Gender
location
P19 Afghanistan Low S Architecture Junior
Southern Asia Male
P20 Thailand Upper S Economics Freshman
Southeastern Asia middle
Male
P21 Uzbekistan Lower- S Journalism Senior
Central Asia middle Female
S = Scholarship, NS = Non-scholarship;
Most of the participants are from low or lower middle-income economies of Africa and
Asia, and just one of them is from a European high-income country. These definitions
for geographic location and the income type of the countries were made in accordance
with the M49 Standard prepared by the Statistics Division of the United Nations (UN)
Secretariat (M49 Standard) and the World Bank (WB) Atlas method (World Bank Country
and Lending Groups) respectively. In this regard, Turkey is located in the Western Asia and
an upper middle-income economy.
In 2017, most of the international students at Anadolu University are male (3159), with
a few (945) coming from high-income countries (HEIMS). Hence, the study group can be
considered as consisting of an appropriate composition of the total 4,778 international
students as a case study, when the characteristics of participants (13 male and one high
income country) are examined from Table 1.
A specific criterion and snowball sampling methods were used to determine the
participants. The criterion was that each participant must have passed the Turkish
Language Proficiency Exam. Students in the Turkish Language Preparatory Classes were
not included in the research, in order to conduct interviews in Turkish. In addition, each
participant had to have had experience in their departments, even if they were in their first
semester. If students are still in the Turkish Language Preparatory Classes, they cannot
select any departmental course.
We contacted participants through their friends and members of International
Students’ Club (ISC). After interviewing one participant, we were able to find another
participant based on information received from the initial interviewee. However, in order
to overcome certain limitations of the snowball sampling regarding diversity, we tried to
contact participants from different countries and departments by the help of ISC, since
the club is an important focal point for international students.
Data Collection
In the research, data was collected through semi-structured interviews and was tape
recorded by the researchers. Semi-structured interviews are very useful to control
the course of the interviews while maintaining freedom of speech of the interviewees
(Creswell, 2003) and to reduce any prejudices of the researchers (McMillan & Schumacher,
1993, p. 426).
Apart from questions relating to demographics, the interview form consisted of three
main questions regarding the decision-making processes to study abroad, to study in
Turkey, and to study at Anadolu University for higher education. For the initial interview
form, interview questions were prepared in accordance with the literature, and the
suggestions of two faculty members in the field of educational administration. Next, four
international students were interviewed as a pilot study. After the pilot study, interview
questions were re-examined with suggestions from the same field experts, and the final
semi-structured questionnaire form was created.
Prior to the interviews, a consent form showing the voluntary participation of the
international students involved and the responsibility of the researchers to keep the voice
recordings and student information confidential was signed by the researchers and the
participants. All the interviews took 30 minutes to conduct on average.
Two researchers participated in all of the interviews. They took individual notes on the
explanations of the participants. The interviews were conducted in the researchers’ room,
a library and at the ISC. Before each interview, researchers stated the goal of the study, gave
time to participants for getting familiar with the interview questions and explained how
important is their plain expressions in order to eliminate biases originated by participant
expectations.
During the course of interviews, researchers avoided unnecessary comments and stuck
with the interview questions to eliminate the researcher bias. Before the study, researchers
thought that the main reason for scholarship students to study in Turkey is simply the
scholarships they have. But as the number of interviews has increased, researchers noticed
that there are other factors for scholarship students as important as having a scholarship,
and most of these factors were also shared by non-scholarship students.
Transcription of Interviews, Coding, and Analysis of the Data

After the interviews, the researchers took an exact transcription of the voice recordings.
Both the transcriptions and the notes of the researchers were used to create the codes,
categories, and themes. The thematic analysis method is employed for the analysis.
Thematic analysis was chosen because of its flexibility (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and
qualitative nature (Vaismoradi, Turunen & Bondas, 2013). First of all, a deductive approach
was used to create categories and themes during the analysis, guided by the literature, and
mostly by Chen’s (2007) synthesis model. According to Clarke and Braun (2014), thematic
analysis can be used deductively when the analysis is driven by pre-existing theories and
frameworks. Thematic analysis can also be used for an analysis of the data gathered by the
different range of questions, focusing on the perspectives, practices, influencing factors,
and construction of specific social processes (Clarke & Braun 2014). In this research,
we mainly focused on influencing factors related to the CCIS. Furthermore, during the
analysis, a low level of interpretation was preferred compared to grounded theory or
hermeneutic phenomenology, but still both the latent and the manifest content were
considered (Vaismoradi, Turunen & Bondas, 2013).
346 Boyaci and Oz
The analysis conducted by the researchers together, followed a path advised by Braun
and Clarke (2006). In this regard, after becoming familiar with the data, researchers
reached the subthemes and themes based on the codes and the literature. Then they
sought advice from the same field experts when reviewing and defining the themes. In
the end, the last form of the themes was created. All the voice records, notes, and
transcriptions used in the analysis are kept confidential.
Regarding validity and reliability, all processes in the methodology part, pilot study,
refinement of the interview form (based on the results of the pilot study), and expert
opinions are good for reliability or internal validity; a criterion sampling method and
detailed results are also good for the external validity of the study. In addition, creating
the themes in the order of codes-categories-subthemes-themes in accordance with the
goal of the study, research questions, expert opinions and the literature, and keeping
all documents related to research for the audit trail, makes the analysis is more reliable
(Merriam, 1998).
Findings
According to the aim of the study, the opinions of the participants can be categorized into
three main themes; intent to go abroad, choosing to study in Turkey, choosing to study
at Anadolu University. Table 2 shows the basic factors constituting the themes by the
participant type (Scholarship Participant – SP or Non-Scholarship Participant – N-SP), the
role of the factor (Pushing or Pulling) and the country type (High-Income Country – HIC
or Non-High-Income Country – N-HIC).
Intent to Go Abroad
There are four main subthemes: academic and economic motives, significant others
and individual characteristics, which have inspired the participants to go abroad for
higher education. These subthemes do not differ between the scholarship and the non-
scholarships students. As an example of academic factors, both the scholarship and
non-scholarship students emphasized, “the prestige of a foreign diploma” and “their
motivation to achieve better educational opportunities”. In addition, “the contribution
of a foreign degree when applying for a job in their home country” was again the shared
economic factor to go abroad by both groups of students.
Sisters, brothers, families, friends, and alumni all influencing an intention to go abroad,
are the categories of significant others for both scholarship and non-scholarship students.
However, “family support for abroad education, advice, and encouragements of friends,
talks with alumni of universities located in Turkey, and sisters/brothers taking the same
scholarship (Türkiye Scholarships)” are mostly mentioned by the scholarship students.
Furthermore, one non-scholarship student emphasized a kind of tradition or a norm
indicating the general status of students who have high expectations and educational
aspirations for abroad education at his high school (P3):
Table 2. Basic Factors Constituting the Themes
Basic factors SP N-SP Pushing Pulling HIC N-HIC

Intend to go abroad
Prestige of a foreign diploma P2, P15 P1, P7 X X
Reaching better educational opportunities P8, P11, P12, P10 X X
P17, P20
Contribution of a foreign degree during the P14, P19 P1 X X
job application
Family support for abroad education P2, P5, P11, P13, P7 X X
P15, P17, P18,
P21
Advice and encouragements of friends P16, P19 X X
Talks with alumni of universities abroad P3 X X
Sisters/brothers taking Türkiye Scholarships P5 P7 X X
Learning a foreign language P2, P5, P12, P13, P10 X X
P14, P15, P17
Personal development P4, P5, P8, P9, P1, P3, P6, P10 X X X
P11, P12, P14,
P15, P16, P17,
P18, P19, P20,
Opinions of International Students
P21
Personal/Professional interests P4, P8, P11, P12, P10 X X
P19
Desire to go abroad P9 X X
Choosing to study in Turkey
Turkey has good quality of education and P2, P4, P9, P11, P1, P3, P7, P10 X X
great number of universities P12, P13, P17,
P18, P19
347
Table 2 continued
Basic factors SP N-SP Pushing Pulling HIC N-HIC 348
Bilateral agreements of Turkish universities P18 P3 X X
with European counterparts
Inadequacies in the higher education system P11 P3 X X
and institutions in the home country
Low quality of education in the home country P4, P11, P16, P7, P10 X X
P17, P18, P19
More job opportunities in home country after P2, P5, P12, P13, P3, P7, P10 X X
graduation from Turkey P16, P17, P18
Türkiye Scholarships P4, P5, P8, P9, X X
P11, P12, P14,
P20
Low cost of education in Turkey P20 P6 X X X
High cost of education in home country P5, P16 P6 X X X
Integration of western values P2, P8, P11, P14, P3, P6 X X X
P16, P18, P20
Boyaci and Oz
Intolerance of women’s education P7 X X

Cultural closeness P2, P4, P11, P12, P1, P3, P7 X X
P15, P16, P17,
P18, P19, P20,
P21
Multicultural environment P2, P5, P8, P11, P1, P3 X X
P12, P14, P15,
P16, P18, P19
Turkish TV shows P2, P15, P21 P10 X X
Being familiar with the Turkish language P2, P12 P1, P3, P10 X
Turkey as a secure country P5, P6, P7 X X
Table 2 continued
Basic factors SP N-SP Pushing Pulling HIC N-HIC
Special interstate agreements between P16 X X X
Turkey and the home country
Home country support to study abroad P18, P19 X X
Ongoing wars and conflict areas in home P8, P11, P14 P7 X X
country
The low level of democracy in the home P11, P18, P20 X X
country
Bribery in the public administration and the P21 P3, P10 X X
education system
Turkey is near to the home country P11 P3 X X
Turkey is near to European countries P2 P3 X X
Family members living or studying in Turkey P4, P17 X X
Friends in Turkey P8, P12, P13, P1, P10 X X
P16
Siblings who are already a Türkiye Scholar- P7 X X
ship student
Previous experiences in Turkey P6 X X
Choosing to study at Anadolu University
Opinions of International Students
Popularity of Anadolu University P2, P4, P5, P9, P1, P3, P6, P7 X X X
P11, P12, P16,
P20
The recognition of degrees and diplomas of P2, P20 P6, P10 X X
Anadolu University in home country and
Europe
Presence of programs in English P13 P6 X X
Presence of top-ranked programs that the P8, P11, P12, P3 X X
participants want to study P15
349
Table 2 continued
Basic factors SP N-SP Pushing Pulling HIC N-HIC 350
Siblings in the Anadolu University P7 X X
Teachers suggesting to study in the Anadolu P2 X X
University
Friends in the Anadolu University P20 P3, P6, P10 X X X
City is a ‘student city’ P4, P11, P13, P1, P3, P7, P10 X X
P15, P18
Favorable living expenses in the city P2 P7 X X
City is not crowded/populated P18, P21 P1, P10 X X
City is a safe place to study P18 P10 X X
Boyaci and Oz
I graduated from a quality high school. In my country, students who

enrolled in similar high schools, want to take higher education abroad.
We regularly talked about studying abroad for higher education and
taking advice from alumni. Other students stay in the country and go
to national universities.
Considering individual characteristics, participants mentioned their personal interests in

going abroad for higher education and their belief that higher education abroad would
make a significant contribution to their personal development. However, the opinions
of the scholarship students are more dominant in the construction of both categories.
“Having the chance to learn a foreign language by going abroad” is a general example
of the personal development category. Similarly, most of the students thought, higher
education abroad is an adventure which would make them more independent in life and
support them by establishing relationships with people from different cultures, ethnicities,
and backgrounds. Hence, “higher education abroad would make a great contribution
to their personal development" (P20). Apart from this, certain participants reveal that
their personal and professional interests require higher education abroad. P4 from the
Journalism Department mentioned, “his interest in the literature, history and politics of
the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and his desire to visit and see Andalusia and
Anatolia, which also leads him to go abroad”. However, for another (P9), higher education
abroad is just an instrument to go abroad:
Going abroad has always been a dream for me. This desire increased in
high school. Frankly, I had a scholarship for a university in my home
country. In addition, this university is ranked higher than Anadolu
University, but I wanted to have different experiences. This would make
me different from my friends because I would experience things that my
friends would never be able to.
Choosing to Study in Turkey

The opinions of the participants can be grouped into seven subthemes; academic,
economic, cultural, political, geographic factors, significant others for both scholarship
and non-scholarship students and background characteristics for only non-scholarship
students. Moreover, some of these subthemes play a dual role in pushing students away
from their home countries and drawing them to study in Turkey.
Academic factors are the most emphasized subtheme by both types of students.
For most of the students, “Turkey has better quality education and a great number of
universities, and accessing educational material is very easy in Turkey as it has bilateral
agreements with European universities”. P18 said that:
Turkey is not like Chad. We can do everything we want in Turkey. We

can use the laboratories and make projects. Turkey has got a high level
of education. I have gone to a university in Spain with the Erasmus
program. It is at a higher level than Anadolu University in international
rankings. However, when you look at the buildings, it looks like a house
352 Boyaci and Oz
containing a different department on each floor. The laboratories are

inadequate when compared with the labs at Anadolu University. So, I
think that Turkey has a better education.
In this regard, academic factors play a dual role in pulling students to study in Turkey and
pushing them away from their home countries. “Inadequacies in the higher education
system and institutions and low quality of education in the home countries”also leads
students of the MENA, central Asian and African countries to study in Turkey.
Economic factors are another subtheme of being pulled towards Turkey for both
types of students. Some believe that “they can easily find jobs after graduating from
an institution in Turkey because there are a number of Turkish corporations or Turkish
schools that they can apply to a job in their home country”. Apart from this, for scholarship
students, Türkiye Scholarships is another factor all by itself, since it covers tuitions,
accommodation, and monthly allowances till the end of education. In this context, they
emphasize that “although they gained other scholarships from different countries, they
still chose Turkey because of the broad extent of coverage of Türkiye Scholarships”.
Furthermore, a great many students mention that “the cost of education by means
of academic and non-academic expenses in Turkey is lower than in their home
countries”.The two students from Ukraine and France particularly emphasize that “the
cost of education is very expensive in their countries, and most of the scholarships do
not cover accommodation and other non-academic expenses. Besides, students have to
take student loans out if they want to attend a four-year university course”. Actually, this
subtheme also plays a dual role for both scholarship and non-scholarship students. On the
one hand, the low cost of education in Turkey attracts students to study in Turkey. On the
other hand, though, the high cost of education in their home country pushes them away
to study abroad.
Furthermore, all the cultural factors are shared by both types of students. These are the
integration of western values, cultural closeness, multicultural environment, and Turkish
TV shows. Most of the participants think that Turkey is between Europe and the Middle
East/Asia in terms of the integration of western values just like its geographic location.
Hence, for some participants (P3, P14) from post-Soviet countries, “The effect of old Soviet
traditions in politics or governments is still going on, but Turkey is more familiar and
integrated with western values”. In addition, “Turkey is more democratic and modern
than their countries” for some participants (P11, P18) coming from MENA countries.
In a similar manner, a participant from France mentioned that (P6) “There is a similar
perception of democracy in France and Turkey. There is laicism in Turkey. I wanted to
study in a country where my freedom wouldn’t be restricted. Turkey is such a place”.
In that manner, a female, non-scholarship student (P7) complained about the
intolerance of women’s education in Afghanistan. According to her, “This situation is
less favorable nowadays, but the idea is still effective”. Hence, the intolerance of women’s
education is critical in pushing the student away from her home country.
Cultural closeness is mentioned by both types of students again, but the opinions of
scholarship students are more dominant. Most of the students coming from MENA and
central Asian countries deal with the “similar words of the language, similar religious
practices, similar eating habits, and a shared history”, which make them and their families
feel close to Turkey and Turkish people. For example, P11 said that:
Turkey is a very beautiful country in the Middle East. It stands with

you. Our mothers, fathers, and grandfathers love Turkey. We have got
a connection, closeness. As an example, I had a friend who gained a
scholarship from Germany, but he didn’t go there. He chose Turkey. Why?
It was because he loves Turkey.
Some students also emphasize the multicultural environment in Turkey. Most of them
know that there are “many students from different countries coming to study in Turkey
with the help of Türkiye Scholarships”. After coming to Turkey, most of the scholarship
and non-scholarship students have to take a preparatory Turkish language class and
successfully complete it before beginning to take departmental courses. Hence, they have
a chance to meet new people from different countries in these preparatory classes.
One of the original findings in the study is the effect of Turkish TV shows on the creation
of the Turkey image in the minds of participants. Four participants (P2, P10, P15, P21),
from both types of students, mention that:
After watching Turkish TV shows they started to wonder about Turkey

and researched it. Besides, these TV shows make them feel close to
Turkey. There is even the effect of Turkish TV shows on their families
supporting students to study in Turkey.
Political factors are also mentioned by both scholarship and non-scholarship students.
The opinions of the participants are mostly concentrated on “the status of Turkey as a
secure country (P11, P14, P19), special interstate agreements between Turkey and the
home country (P16), and home country support to study abroad” (P18). These were all
effective on their decision to study in Turkey.
However, political factors also play a dual role which leads students to go abroad for
higher education. Students from Ukraine and Yemen underlined that “the ongoing wars
and conflict areas in their home countries lead the country into political turmoil and an
unstable political condition. So, they need to go abroad for higher education”. Similarly,
one student (P20), emphasized, “the low level of democracy in his home country, since the
government of the state is occupied by soldiers, which makes him unwilling to support
the current leaders”. Furthermore, two students (P3, P21) from a central Asia country,
complained about the bribery in bureaucracy, reducing the trust in public administration
and the education system. P21 told that “Even when you take the university entrance
exam, you can bribe”.
Again, both types of student explained the geographic factors leading them to study in
Turkey. They emphasized the geographic proximity of Turkey and their home countries,
and that of Turkey and Europe, by underlining that, “Turkey is very near to their home
countries and it is a door, a bridge to Europe”.
Significant others emerge as another subtheme for being drawn towards Turkey.
For both types of students,“family members, friends in Turkey” are the major agents
354 Boyaci and Oz
encouraging and suggesting studying in Turkey. For the scholarship students especially,
“siblings who have already achieved Türkiye Scholarships and who are still studying in
Turkey”, recommend studying in Turkey.
Apart from this, there is another subtheme, which is background characteristics, only
mentioned by a non-scholarship student from France talking about her experiences in
Turkey. “She came to Turkey a few times for summer holidays”. Actually, during the pilot
interviews, a similar factor was emphasized by a non-scholarship student from Germany.
That student was a one-year Erasmus exchange student in Turkey (Anadolu University)
during her undergraduate education. Hence, for a student from a high-income western
European country, previous individual experience of Turkey could be effective on their
choice to study in Turkey in later years.
Choosing to Study at Anadolu University

The opinions of the participants can be grouped into three subthemes; academic factors,
significant others and city characteristics. These are the same for both scholarship and
non-scholarship students.
Regarding academic factors, the popularity of Anadolu University, based on the
academic quality and campus among Turkish universities, is shared by both student
groups. However, there are also some different points highlighted by scholarship and
non-scholarship students separately. A number of scholarship students emphasize the
“recognition of degrees and diplomas gained at Anadolu University by European and home
countries as an advantage of studying here”. In addition, certain students underlined that
“Anadolu University has top-ranked programs” that students were studying in their home
country or were interested in and the “presence of programs in English”.
Significant others are also effective in decisions to study at Anadolu University for both
types of students. Friendssuggesting study at Anadolu University are a major factor. These
friends are either still studying at Anadolu University or are students of other universities
in Turkey. For example, P1 says: “I asked my friends about Anadolu University. They said
that it has exchange programs, a good library and a good cafeteria in a really good campus”.
Additionally, others mention that their “siblings in the Anadolu University” and “teachers
in the home country”suggested studying at Anadolu University.
City characteristics are emphasized by both types of students as a critical factor in their
decision to study at Anadolu University. Anadolu University is located in Eskişehir, often
called ‘the student city’ by Turkish nationals. Eskişehir was ranked at 1st in 2017 and
2018 at the student-friendly city listing by University Assessments and Research Center
(Karadağ & Yücel, 2018). Besides, people can find lots of artistic and cultural activities in
the city and it attracts many domestic tourists.
According to the opinions of the participants, both types of international student
share the same ideas as Turkish nationals regarding Eskişehir. In this regard, non-
scholarship students especially highlighted “the cost of education and living expenses as
being favorable for a student in Eskişehir”. Similarly, its location between Ankara, Istanbul
and Izmir connects Eskişehir to these important Turkish cities. However, Eskişehir is not as
populated asthese cities. The three major cities mentioned also experience higher crime
rates. Unlike these cities, “Eskişehir is a safer and more secure place to study”.
Discussion
When participants decide to go abroad for higher education, the prestige of a foreign
diploma, finding a job easily in their home country, finding better educational
opportunities, learning a foreign language, and the instrumentalization of higher
education to go abroad are among the pulling factors at work, whereas personal
development, personal and professional interests and the role of peer social capital
constitute the pushing factors. In addition, significant others play both pushing and
pulling roles. Moreover, personal development, and personal and professional interests
are also mentioned by some participants from low and middle-income countries from
Asia and Africa, which shows that the private rationale (Kondakci, 2011) is also prominent
for participants from non-high-income countries. Therefore, these participants also show
interest in new cultures, and they act according to their professional interests regarding
specialization in a particular field (Hercog, & Van de Laar, 2013).
All the above factors are also mentioned by previous studies in the literature (Hercog,
& Van de Laar, 2013; Kim, Bankart, Jiang & Brazil,2018; McCarthy, Sen, & Fox Garrity,
2012; Ortiz, 2015; Özoğlu, Gür & Coşkun, 2015; Singh, 2016; Tan, 2015) except the peer
social capital and instrumentalization of higher education to go abroad. P3 expresses the
presence of an idea of going abroad for higher education in his and his friends’ minds at
high school. He emphasizes that their school was full of high achieving students wishing
to get to better higher education opportunities abroad. As a result, they have certain
values or traditions regarding going abroad for higher education, which is also reinforced
by the activities of previous students who went abroad. This indicates that they possess
social capital in their peer network based on shared norms leading them to go abroad
for higher education. On the other hand, P9 mentions that although she had better
educational opportunities than in Turkey and attended a better-quality university than
Anadolu University, she left her university and country, and came to Turkey, solely because
she wanted to go abroad. With assistance from Türkiye Scholarships, she managed to
come to Turkey. In this manner, she used higher education as an instrument to go abroad.
Thus, the baseline was to go abroad and have different experiences, which would make
her feel different from her friends. In this way, she probably thinks that she would gain
recognition from others (Jung, 2013).
There are many similarities between the factors leading both scholarship and non-
scholarship students to study in Turkey. Specifically, geographic proximity, significant
others, integration of western values, similar religious practices, eating habits, a shared
history, multicultural environment, Turkish TV shows, Turkey as a secure country, ongoing
conflicts or wars in home, bureaucratic bribery and low level of democracy in home
country, finding jobs easily after graduating from a Turkish university, low academic and
non-academic expenses in Turkey, bilateral agreements between European universities
and inadequacies in the higher education system and institutions in home country are
all shared by both types of students. Moreover, intolerance of women’s education in home
country and past experiences in Turkey are only mentioned by non-scholarship students,
whereas, the presence of Türkiye Scholarships is expressed only by the scholarship
students. All these factors are also compatible with the current literature (Hercog, & Van de
Laar, 2013; Kim et al., 2018; Kondakci, 2011; McCarthy et al., 2012; Ortiz, 2015; Özoğlu et al.,
356 Boyaci and Oz
2015; Singh, 2016; Tan, 2015). Considering all, it can be said that differentiation between
the factors drawing scholarship and non-scholarship students are weak because these
expressions are too general. For example, intolerance of women’s education is mentioned
by a non-scholarship woman participant from Afghanistan. However, this could also
be emphasized by any other scholarship student from an Asian or African low-income
country.
Similarly, most of these factors also play a dual role either pushing or pulling students
to study in Turkey. Only geographic proximity, similar religious practices, eating habits,
shared history, Türkiye Scholarships, and bilateral agreements with European universities
are unique examples of pulling factors. Considering a comparison of countries based on
their geographic locations, geographic proximity, similar religious practices, eating habits,
shared history, intolerance of women’s education, inadequacies in the higher education
system and institutions in the home country, better education in Turkey, bureaucratic
bribery and low level of democracy in home country are only mentioned by participants
from Asian and African countries; whereas past experiences in Turkey is only mentioned
by participant from a European high-income country.
In this regard, integration of western values by Turkey, which is also mentioned by most
of the students from Europe, Asia and Africa is one of the unique findings of this study.
Remembering Kondakci’s (2010) arguments on the internationalization capacity of Turkey,
integration of western values extends to the cultural bonds of Turkey beyond the Balkans,
and to the norms of European high-income countries regarding democracy, human rights
and freedom. In this manner, it should be noted that Turkey has cultural bonds with
European high-income countries as well as with the countries located in MENA, central
Asia and the Balkan region. Therefore, such integration of western values by Turkey could
also be critical in attracting students from European or American high-income countries.
Similarly, academic and non-academic expenses are quite low in Turkey. For students
from European high-income countries, this factor is very effective in choosing to study
in Turkey, even without a scholarship. These students think that educational expenses
are low in Turkey because in their countries living expenses are high and universities
demand high fees. Actually, students from MENA and central Asian countries also find that
educational expenses are favorable in Turkey, because they would pay more if they studied
in their countries for lower quality higher education (Greene & Kirby, 2012; Hercog, & Van
de Laar, 2013; Kim et al., 2018; Kondakci, 2011; McCarthy et al., 2012; Ortiz, 2015; Özoğlu
et al., 2015; Singh, 2016; Tan, 2015).
An interesting finding of this study is the effect of Turkish TV shows on CCIS. All of
the students who mentioned this come from central Asian countries. In fact, Turkish
TV shows have begun to appeal to audiences around the globe. A number of Turkish
actors and actresses have received awards for their performances from international
organizations. Furthermore, several Turkish film directors have received attention from
international film award committees and have won awards. In this regard, the film
industry and Turkish TV productions can also be useful for cultural and public diplomacy
for prospective international students and their families (Golan, 2013; KathyFitzpatrick,
Fullerton & Kendrick, 2013).
Furthermore, past good experiences related to Turkey comes to the forefront as a

pulling factor only for participants from European high-income countries. In fact, without
pilot interviews, this opinion is only mentioned by one participant. As a developing
country, Turkey is mostly preferred by students from non-high-income countries of Asia,
Africa and eastern Europe. In Turkey, there are only 4,713 (4.36%) students from the U.S.A.,
Germany, France, Italy, Spain and U.K in total, including exchange programs in 2017
(HEIMS). Several reasons can be proposed to explain this low figure in Turkey. However,
past good experiences related to Turkey may be an effective factor for participants from
high-income European countries to study in Turkey. This is because, personal interests
and experiencing new cultures are very influential on the decision of going abroad for
higher education for students from high-income and developed countries, figuring out
the private rationale (Kondakci, 2011).
When it comes to choosing to study at Anadolu University, the popularity of Anadolu
University (campus and academic quality), recognition of degrees and diploma gained
from Anadolu University in the home country, the presence of programs in English,
significant others and city characteristics (low and favorable cost of education and the
living expenses) are the major factors affecting CCIS, as is seen in other studies (Hercog, &
Van de Laar, 2013; Kim et al., 2018; McCarthy et al., 2012; Ortiz, 2015; Özoğlu et al., 2015;
Singh, 2016; Tan, 2015). All these factors do not differentiate between scholarship and
non-scholarship students as well as whether they are from high or low-income countries
of Asia, Africa or Europe. However, these factors only play a pulling role to study at Anadolu
University.
Conclusion and Recommendations

According to the findings of the study, it can be said that although there are fewer non-
scholarship students than scholarship ones, there is not critical differences between
factors affecting scholarship and non-scholarship students’ decisions regarding study at
Anadolu University at subtheme level.
One possible explanation of this could be that most of the participants are from similar
or lower income type countries when compared with Turkey. Only P6 is from a high-
income European country. In this regard, there is a homogeneity in the composition of
the participants by income type of countries, which could lead students to make similar
explanations on college choice process. Besides, having a scholarship could be an essential
factor to choose to study in Turkey, but still may not be the dominant factor, figuring out
the global student mobility flow from low-income to high-income countries.
However, the non-scholarship student from France (a high-income country), empha-
sized laicism and individual freedom as similarities between Turkey and France and talked
about her past good experiences certain reasons in her decision to study in Turkey. Apart
from that four of the five students from central Asian countries (non-high-income coun-
tries), stated the effect of Turkish TV shows plays a notable role in their decision to study
in Turkey. Hence, although there are lots of similarities in factors affecting CCIS for
both scholarship and non-scholarship students, different background characteristics and
income types could lead several distinctions in the factors influencing CCIS.
358 Boyaci and Oz
Furthermore, different factors play different roles either pushing or pulling in the
individual (intent to go abroad) and institutional levels (choosing to study at Anadolu
University). However, in the national level (choosing to study in Turkey) a very same
factor could play both pushing and pulling roles because of the disadvantages of the home
countries and the advantages represented in Turkey.
Personal development comes to the forefront as a major factor when students intend to
go abroad. In this manner, it should be noted that higher education abroad has numerous
functions in the life of students other than its perceived economic, academic and social
gains. Similarly, city characteristics and the popularity of Anadolu University (campus and
academic quality) are the most important factors affecting students choosing to study at
Anadolu University, or at the institutional level.
When personal development of the students and the qualities of the Anadolu University
are dealt with together, specifically the university, and broadly the city where the university
is located, they should offer students different opportunities enabling the students’
academic and social engagement and development (Özturgut, 2013), so that the students
should be able to maintain a balance between the lifestyles they developed in their home
countries and the new life experiences they would have in the host country, as well as
coping with prospective problems. Therefore, although Eskişehir is known as the student
city, Anadolu University should put more emphasis on enhancing this city-university
relationship and highlight the advantages of living in Eskişehir for international students
in its core agenda for public (or student) affairs in the national and international arenas.
When choosing to study in Turkey, integration of western values regarding democracy,
human rights and freedom, economic advantages of higher education, cultural and
historical bonds and past positive experiences of participants in Turkey are some of the
essential factors affecting CCIS. As a geographic and cultural bridge that has existed for
centuries, Turkey has fostered unique ties between East and West throughout history. In
today’s world, when the student mobility rate is higher than ever, Turkey has emerged
as a new regional hub for international students although it is located on the periphery,
considering that developed countries constitute the center destinations in international
student mobility (Kondakci, 2011). This capacity to attract international students, not
only from low-income eastern countries but also from high-income western countries
can be improved if Turkey is able to promote and sustain its cultural characteristics
regarding an appreciation of modernization, democracy, human rights, and freedom.
Such an appreciation should also be reflected and promoted more by higher education
institutions. Additionally, such efforts would also ensure that international students have
positive experiences during their stay in Turkey. However, to increase the experiences
of international students with Turkey specifically, summer exchange programs for high
school students could be established. Moreover, activities for the promotion of Turkish
culture and better marketing of Turkish higher education institutions could also be
made from the beginning at the K-12 education level to adults abroad. In this manner,
with the co-ordination of the Yunus Emre Institute (YEE), the Turkish Cooperation
and Coordination Agency (TİKA) and the Precedency for Turks Abroad and Related
Communities (YTB), these activities, programs, and projects will be operated more
effectively, and resources could be allocated more efficiently.
Finally, for other countries having similar qualities with Turkey, such as being a
developing country, there are several insights resulting from this study. Sustaining secure
and peaceful environment, favorable education and living expenses in campus and the
city, more courses in English, college support for engagement by providing students with
academically and socially rich activities could be key factors for attracting international
students. Besides, providing international students with scholarships options in the host
country could be another effective factor. In this manner, advertisement of the host
country and opportunities for international students would be very useful, especially by
emphasizing the historical and cultural bonds or similarities between host and home
countries.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the
top destination for foreign students? Change: The magazine of Higher. Learning, 36(2),
18–25.
Aslan, C. (2014). Students in foreign countries in the field of educational sciences in Early
period of Turkish Republic: 1923–1940 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Bodycott, P. (2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination: What mainland
Chinese parents and students rate as important. Journal of Research in International
education, 8(3), 349–373. 09345818.
Bogdan, C. & Biklen, K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory
and methods. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Chen, L. (2007). East-Asian students’ choice of Canadian graduate schools. International
Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(4), 271–306.
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. pages 6626–6628, Dordrecht. Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method
approaches. Sage, Oaks.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage, Oaks.
Fitzpatrick, J. D. K., Fullerton, J., & Kendrick, A. (2013). Public relations and public
diplomacy: Conceptual and practical connections. Public Relations Journal, 7(4), 1–21.
Fraenkel, R. J. & Wallen, E. N. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Golan, G. J. (2013). An integrated approach to public diplomacy. American Behavioral
Scientist, 57(9), 1251–1255.
Greene, M. & Kirby, D. (2012). The impact of tuition fees on access and student migration:
Lessons from Canada’s Atlantic coast. Widening Participation and Lifelong. Learning,
14(1), 72–90.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2016). Context and concepts of higher education consumer
choice. In Higher education consumer choice. Palgrave, London.
Hossler, D. & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model
and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207–221.
360 Boyaci and Oz
Hossler, D., Schmit, J. L., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic,
and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Jung, J. Y. (2013). Amotivation and indecision in the decision-making processes associated
with university entry. Research in Higher Education, 54(1), 115–136.
Karadağ, E. & Yücel, C. (2018). Öğrenci dostu üniversite şehirleri araştırması. Student-
friendly university cities research: 2018]. Üniar Yayınları.
Kaya, K. (2014). Türkiye’nin Afrika Açılım Stratejisinde Uluslararasi Öğrenci Hareketlil-
iğinin Rolü [Role of International Student Mobility in Turkey’s Opening Strategy Towards
Africa] (Unpublished Dissertation). Precedency for Turks Abroad and Related Commu-
nities.
Kim, D., Bankart, C. A., Jiang, X., & Brazil, A. M. (2018). Understanding the college choice
process of Asian international students. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
Kirisci, K. (2000). Disaggregating Turkish citizenship and immigration practices. Middle
Eastern Studies, 36(3), 1–22.
Kondakci, Y. (2010). Turkey’s distinctive position in the internationalization of higher
education. Higher education and the Middle East: Serving the knowledge-based.
economy, 1(7), 52–54.
Kondakci, Y. (2011). Student mobility reviewed: Attraction and satisfaction of international
students in Turkey. Higher Education, 62(5), 573–10.
Kotler, P. & Fox, K. F. A. (1985). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47–57.
Maringe, F. & Carter, S. (2007). International students’ motivations for studying in UK HE:
Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International Journal
of Educational Management, 21(6), 459–475.
Mazzarol, T. & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student
destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90.
McCarthy, E., Sen, A., & Garrity, B. F. (2012). Factors that influence Canadian students’
choice of higher education institutions in the United States. Business Education &
Accreditation, 4(2), 85–95.
McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. State University of, Albany.
McMahon, M. E. (1992). Higher education in a world market. Higher Education, 24(4),
465–482.
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction.
Harper Collins, New York.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, San.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, San.
Neice, D. B. & P.H. (1977). Patron for the World, Canadian Bureau for International
Education.
Ortiz, A. (2015). New study: How international bachelor’s students choose institutions.
World Education Services.
Oğuzlu, T. (2007). Soft power in Turkish foreign policy. australian Journal of international
affairs, 61(1), 81–97.
Özturgut, O. (2013). Best practices in recruiting and retaining international students in the
US. Current Issues in Education, 16(2), 1–22.
Paulsen, M. B. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior.
Pimpa, N. (2003). The influence of family on Thai students’ choices of international
education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(5), 211–219.
Reisman, A. (2007). Jewish refugees from Nazism, Albert Einstein, and the modernization
of higher education in Turkey. Aleph, 7.
Saraç, M. A. Y. (2017). Presidential speech in the Turkey-Africa Conference of Ministers of
Education.
Singh, J. K. N., Schapper, J., & Jack, G. (2014). The importance of place for international
students’ choice of university: A case study at a Malaysian university. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 18(5), 463–474.
Singh, M. K. M. (2016). Socio-economic, environmental and personal factors in the choice
of country and higher education institution for studying abroad among international
students in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(4), 505–519.
Tan, A. (2015). College choice behaviors of international students. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1–14.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences,
15(3), 398–405.
World, U. . U. (2009). Conference on Higher Education: Final report. The New Dynamics
of Higher Education and Research for Societal Change and Development.
Author biography
Adnan Boyaci is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Sciences,
Anadolu University. His major research interests lie in the area of educational
management and leadership, higher education administration, internationalization of
higher education, and educational policies.
Yakup Oz is a PhD candidate in the Educational Administration program at Anadolu

University and a research assistant in the Department of Educational Sciences,
Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University. His research focused on the school leadership
and student achievement, school dropout and social capital, student retention and
engagement in higher education and internationalization of higher education.
View publication stats

Age As An Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition: January 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Age As An Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition: January 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Age as an Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition

Article · January 2008

Workshop/Webinar Series: International Students View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of International Students | 2019 Vol. 9 | Issue 1

All rights reserved. This journal is a STAR Scholars Network publication.

Print ISSN 2162-3104

1. Dr. Anesa Hosein, Higher Education, University of Surrey, UK

Copy Editors (2019-2021)

1. Joy Bancroft, Daytona State Collage, USA

Assistant Editors/Consulting Editors

1. Dr. Charles R. Harris, Stony Brook University, USA

1. Dr. Adem Soruc, Sakarya University, Turkey (2/2018-2/2021)

"#$!%&'!&(()**!+,)!-./0+!&012#.!1/3/+&4!(#-/)*!#5!+,) !"#$%&'(")(*%+,$%&+-"%&'(.+#/,%+0 5.#%!678!4/9.&./)* :#.41:/1);

11 Academic and Social Support Services for International Students: 172-191

12 Needs, Expectations, and Experiences of International Students in 192-210

13 Studying in the United States: Language Learning Challenges, 211-224

14 The Effects of Linguistic and Demographic Features of Chinese 225-241

15 Undergraduate International Student Enrollment Forecasting 242-261

16 Institutional Satisfaction and Recommendation: What Really 262-281

17 Behavioral Health Risk and Resilience among International 282-305

18 “Education Abroad” for International Student Advisors: What is the 306-319

19 International Undergraduate Student Engagement: Implications for 320-337

20 Opinions of International Students on Choosing a State University 338-361

Journal of International Students

The Next Ten Years: Looking Back,

Corresponding authors: crglass@odu.edu (Chris Glass), krishna.bista@morgan.edu (Krishna

of back issues to increase article discoverability, an ‘Online First’ publication of articles to

Journal of International Students

Statistical Analysis of Study Abroad

Keywords: acculturation, academic support, campus discrimination, Erasmus+ pro-

a Josek Mikuláš. Czech University of Life Sciences, Email: mikulas.josek@gmail.com

1. The concepts of campus discrimination, academic support and academic satisfac-

2. Research Question 1: Are the chosen variables statistically appropriate for

positive association between social support and psychological well-being of international

mediator of acculturation), and academic satisfaction (an outcome of acculturation), we

1. I was treated differently or unfairly at my host university because of being an

1. Professors were willing to give helpful academic advice to international students.

Principal Component Analysis

Figure 1. Scree plot of principal component analysis.

Table 1. Component matrix of principal component analysis.

I feel as though I was treated as less .815

Index of regional Rank (point Index of Rank (standard

Index of Rank (point Index of Rank (standard

Index of Rank (point Index of Rank (standard

Correlation Coefficients Between Aggregated Indexes

Discussion and Conclusions

Table 5. Ranking comparison of five host countries on acculturation experiences.

Campus Academic Academic

According to the correlation analyses, the expected negative relationship between

Svobodová Jitka is a PhD candidate of the Department of Statistics, Faculty of Economics

Journal of International Students

“We are a ghost in the class”: First Year

Keywords: academic literacies, deficit view, international students, classroom practices,

a Keri Freeman. Griffith University, Email: k.freeman@griffith.edu.au

education is expected to continue rising, and by 2020, international enrollments in

The Academic Literacies Approach

First-Year Transition Strategies

Pseudonym Nationality Gender Age Degree

Data Collection and Analysis

At first [when I arrived in Australia] I had no idea how to write the

I should think more if I write something.That’s the importance of

"#$!%&'!&(()**!+,)!-./0+!&012#.!1/3/+&4!(#-/)!#5!+,) !"#$%&'(")(%+,$%&+-"%&'(.+#/,%+0 5.#%!678!4/9.&./)* :#.41:/1);