This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 05 October 2013, At: 19:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

Learning and growing in a ‘foreign’context: intercultural experiences ofinternational studentsQing Gu a , Michele Schweisfurth b & Christopher Day aa School of Education, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus,Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UKb Centre for International Education and Research, University ofBirmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UKPublished online: 17 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Qing Gu , Michele Schweisfurth & Christopher Day (2010) Learning and growingin a ‘foreign’ context: intercultural experiences of international students, Compare: A Journal ofComparative and International Education, 40:1, 7-23, DOI: 10.1080/03057920903115983

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057920903115983

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

CompareVol. 40, No. 1, January 2010, 7–23

ISSN 0305-7925 print/ISSN 1469-3623 online© 2010 British Association for International and Comparative EducationDOI: 10.1080/03057920903115983http://www.informaworld.com

Learning and growing in a ‘foreign’ context: intercultural experiences of international students

Qing Gua*, Michele Schweisfurthb and Christopher Daya

aSchool of Education, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK; bCentre for International Education and Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UKTaylor and FrancisCCOM_A_411771.sgm10.1080/03057920903115983Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education0305-7925 (print)/1469-3623 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis0000000002009Dr QingGuQing.Gu@nottingham.ac.uk

This paper discusses the background and key findings of a two-year Economicand Social Research Council (ESRC) funded mixed-method research project(2006–2008) which was designed, within the context of universityinternationalisation, to provide an investigation of the experiences of first-yearinternational students during their undergraduate study at four UK highereducation institutions. The research explored the complexities of internationalstudents’ transitional experiences both in terms of their maturation and humandevelopment and their intercultural adaptation within a different educationalenvironment and a different culture and society. These two types of transitioninteractively influenced the nature and process of students’ change anddevelopment over time. Findings of the research challenge the psychologicalmodel of international students’ linear intercultural adaptation and point to thepresence of a complex set of shifting associations between language mastery,social interaction, personal development and academic outcomes. It is themanagement of this amalgam which results in intercultural adaptation and thesuccessful reconfiguration of ‘identity’. Moreover, this research suggests thatpersonal, pedagogical and psychological factors are as important as organisationaland social cultures in influencing students’ adaptation, identity change andultimate success. The extent and nature of successful change and development canbe restricted by the availability of support and the conditions of contact within theenvironments in which they are engaged.

Keywords: international students; university internationalisation; interculturalexperience

Introduction

This paper reports the findings of a two-year research project, funded by the UKEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which investigated the experiencesof international1 undergraduate students at four UK universities. The researchexplored critical influences on their intercultural adaptation, examined how theseinfluences impacted differently on them during their stay in the UK, and identified thecontributing factors to different levels and forms of adaptation, change and develop-ment. It made comparisons within and across different student groups in transition,aiming to identify similarities and differences between students from different culturaland academic backgrounds.

*Corresponding author. Email: Qing.Gu@nottingham.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

8 Q. Gu et al.

The late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have witnessed unprecedentedchange as the scope and complexity of the internationalisation of higher educationhave expanded and deepened exponentially. This may be best represented in thedramatic rise in the mobility of students, academics and knowledge (Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2007; Uvali[cacute] -Trumbi[cacute] , Daniel, andWest 2007). Statistics on student mobility show that in 2004, more than 2.5 milliontertiary students studied outside their home countries compared to 1.75 million in1999 – a 41% increase (UNESCO 2006). The Global Student Mobility 2025 report(Bö[odblac]hm et al. 2002) predicts that the demand for international education will increaseto 7.2 million in 2025.

In the UK, both government and universities have been engaged in a push toimprove the international competitiveness of the higher education offering (Guardian,2006; also Blair 1999; UKCOSA 2004; UKCISA 2007; Universities UK 2006). Thethen Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999 called upon universities to ‘open a windowon the world’ (Blair 1999). One of the key aims of the second Prime Minister’s Initia-tive (PMI), launched in 2006, was to consolidate the success of the PMI 1 throughunderstanding the expectations of international students and improving the quality ofall aspects of their experience whilst studying and living in the UK (British Council2007). International students are seen as vital to the current and future health of UKfurther and higher education and their contribution is perceived to be academic andcultural as well as financial (Burslem 2004). The UK national economy benefits fromconsiderable earnings of £12.5 billion per year (British Council 2008).

Given this policy context, there has been a growing level of concern over the extentto which British universities are continuing to provide appropriate and responsivelevels of academic and personal support for international students (De Vita and Case2003; Guardian 2005; Universities UK 2006; British Council 2007). Whilst there is agrowing literature on the experiences of international students in the UK, this tends totake the form either of surveys reporting broad trends (e.g. UKCOSA 2004; UKCISA2007), or of smaller-scale qualitative studies concerned with only one student/stake-holder group (such as Chinese students) or with a narrow focus (such as motivationsfor studying abroad). This research, located in current policy contexts and groundedin the ethics of educational practices, was designed to provide a more nuanced, differ-entiated account of ways in which different students in different phases of their studiesadapt to their academic and social environments than was previously available.

Conceptualising the context

The international dimension of higher education: the policy context

Internationalisation is perceived by some as the most revolutionary development inhigher education in the twenty-first century (Seddoh 2001). It has been claimed thatin the contemporary era of globalisation, when technological transformation hasincreased the volume and speed of global flows of people, information and images,investments, policies, and knowledge at an unprecedented pace and scale (Appadurai1996; Friedman 2005; Rizvi 2008), broadening and deepening the international andglobal connectivity of higher education is no longer an option, but a necessity. It isargued, however, that such change must be accompanied by and embedded in respectfor the history, traditions, culture and priorities of each individual nation (Knight andde Wit 1997; Knight 1999). Thus, like globalisation, internationalisation is not aphenomenon that is neutral or value free.

c c

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 9

In higher education, the concepts, forms, focus and movement of the internation-alisation agenda have changed profoundly over time. According to de Wit (2008),Britain and Australia introduced differential fees for international students at the endof 1970s which marked the first move from ‘aid to trade’. In the mid-1980s, driven bythe European Commission, continental Europe shifted its focus from aid to co-operation and exchange. By the end of the twentieth century, de Wit (2008) observedthat economic rationales, together with the academic and political rationales, hadbegun to drive the move of internationalisation from co-operation and exchange totrade, primarily in terms of international student recruitment. Now, at the end of thefirst decade of the twenty-first century, the competition for international students,particularly in the form of the provision of cross-border education in the developedworld, has increased significantly (de Wit 2008; OECD 2008). In her report for theOECD, Knight states that ‘the last decade has clearly been a hotbed of innovation andnew developments in international academic mobility’ (OECD 2007, 23). As newforms of cross-border education emerge and grow, so too has the complexity of theinternationalisation of higher education increased. Rizvi (2008) concludes that in thepast two decades, the idea of internationalisation of higher education has become soubiquitous that ‘it can now be regarded as part of a global slogan system designed tosteer educational reform in a particular direction’ (2008, 20).

Knight (1999, 2004), in particular, has been engaged in an endeavour to clarify themeaning of internationalisation. She (Knight 2004) broadened the concept by high-lighting (1) the importance of the national/sector level in the realities of today’s polit-ical, cultural and economic context, and (2) the growing diversity of educationproviders and their different interests and approaches to the international, intercultural,and global dimensions of internationalisation. Her latest working definition describesthe internationalisation of higher education as ‘the process of integrating an interna-tional, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research,service) and the delivery of higher education’ (OECD 2007, 23; Knight 2004).

More recently, Sanderson (2008) extended Knight’s framework of internationali-sation, arguing that two additional dimensions should also be taken into account indefining the dynamic processes of internationalisation, i.e. the supranational dimensionand the within-institutional dimension (Figure 1). In agreement with Knight, hisextended framework also proposes that different forces of internationalisation interactacross a local–global continuum and ‘reflect, reinforce, express and create internation-alisation outcomes in a dynamic fashion’ (Sanderson 2008, 279).Figure 1. The actual extent of the depth and breadth dimensions of the reach of internationalisation (Sanderson 2008: 280).In contrast to Knight’s organisational approach to the conceptualisation of interna-tionalisation, Sanderson adopted a phenomenological approach by investigating thedynamics and impacts of internationalisation, not on the organisation but on theprofessional and personal outlooks of individuals, in this case, the teachers. Hedescribed Knight’s organisational approach as ‘a beacon of explanation’ which shedlight on the processes, approaches, rationales and strategies of internationalisation inthe 1990s when the rapid engagement with internationalisation of activities was ‘morechaotic and less understood’ (Sanderson 2008, 281). However, as internationalisationis developing into a more mature phase in the twenty-first century, Sanderson (2008)reminded us that the capacity of an organisational approach to inform the minutiae ofinternationalisation at the level of individuals was limited.

He suggested, therefore, that in order to understand the processes and effects ofinternationalisation, it is essential to investigate the purposes, practices and experi-ences of key stakeholders at all levels and the dynamic interactions between these.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

10 Q. Gu et al.

This research, therefore, investigated the nature and quality of the experiences ofinternational students as one key group in this phenomenon. The internationalisationof higher education is not an end itself, but a means to an end, ‘with the end being theimprovement of the quality of education’ (Knight 1999, 20). Experiences of interna-tional students, to a greater or lesser extent, provide an indicator of the quality of theprovision of education.

The nature of intercultural experience: the research context

Interest in what constitutes culture, its deep-rootedness and its unspoken assumptionshas increased over recent decades as the phenomenon of ‘sojourning’ (taking uptemporary residence in another culture) has become more common. The study iscontextualised in different research literatures concerning the nature of intercultural aswell as cross-cultural experience, the stresses of studying abroad, and the interactionbetween home and host cultures in student adaptation.

Cross-cultural experience and intercultural experience tend to be used inter-changeably in the literature. Although they are not mutually exclusive, they embracedifferent focuses. The notion of cross-cultural experience inherently stresses boundarycrossing, differences and diversity; intercultural experience, on the other hand,‘encompasses both domestic and international contexts and implies cultures interact-ing’ (Landreman 2003, cited in King and Baxter Magolda 2005, 572). This study takesthe view that cross-cultural is embedded within the intercultural experience. Itsprimary focus is, therefore, upon the latter.

Although individuals may experience both cross- and inter-cultural experiencessimultaneously when they are exposed to different cultural environments and in

Figure 1. The actual extent of the depth and breadth dimensions of the reach of internation-alisation (Sanderson 2008, 280).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 11

encounters with different people, the tensions caused by their attempts to managecultural differences tend to be more overwhelming in the initial phase of these crossand intercultural experiences. As they adapt to the new environment, they may grad-ually notice that they have, either consciously or subconsciously, become ‘one of them’.However, as some writers note (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Paulston 1992; Byram2003), certain aspects of cultural beliefs and values may be beyond modification or‘integration’ and will never be completely abandoned for others. Thus, individuals maydevelop ‘proficiency in self-expression and in fulfilling their various social needs’ inthe host culture (Kim 2005, 391), whilst continuing to experience a sense of boundaryor ‘otherness’ when confronted with conflicting values and beliefs. This area of tensionbetween the locus of self (belonging) and simultaneous sense of otherness (alienation)requires further systematic, empirical research in the context of internationalisation.

Ward and Kennedy (1993, 222) suggest that there are two major types of reactionsto intercultural stress: psychological adjustment (i.e. psychological well-being orsatisfaction that is interwoven with stress and coping process) and sociocultural adap-tation (i.e. relating to social skills and predicted on cultural learning) (see also Leunget al. 2006; Li and Gasser 2005; Mori 2000; Searle and Ward 1990; Ward andKennedy 1999). Other research also shows that intercultural experience can be atransformative learning process which leads to a journey of personal growth anddevelopment (Adler 1975; Anderson 1994; Byrnes 1965; Furnham 2004).

Whilst the above studies are valuable as a means of identifying key issues in inter-cultural education, most are predominantly quantitative and ‘objectivistic in nature’(Gudykunst 2005, 25) and attempt to predict patterns of adaptation and factors thatdetermine the observed patterns. Thus they fail to explain and present the ‘richness andfragmentation’ of intercultural adaptation processes (Kim 2005, 376) processes inwhich international students are engaged in continuous negotiation and mediation withthe surrounding environment, self-analysis (of their values and beliefs), self-reflection,and self-reorientation. The development of each component of their interculturalcompetence – attitude, knowledge, skills and critical cultural awareness (Byram et al.2001) – influences and is influenced by the development of the others, and is moder-ated by the environment in which the individual is engaged. The degrees of adaptation– the process through which students change (or do not change) to fit in with the hostculture – differ depending upon personal and situational factors and their interaction.

Coleman (2004) argues that as a result of the ‘huge range’ of internal and externalfactors, many of which are not associated with culture, the outcomes of studyingabroad vary considerably from one individual to another:

In each individual case, biographical, affective, cognitive and circumstantial variablescome into play, with students’ previous language learning and aptitude impacted uponby their motivation, attitudes, anxiety, learning style and strategies, as well as by unpre-dictable elements such as location, type of accommodation, and degree of contact withnative speakers. (2004, 583)

However important it may be, culture is not the only determinant of teaching and learn-ing practices, preferences and experiences. In an earlier study – a mixed-methodcomparative pilot study on Chinese learners’ experiences in the UK and in Britishprojects in China – Gu and Schweisfurth (2006) found that in addition to culture,factors such as the identities and motivations of the learners and the power relation-ships between them and their teachers were also significant issues in the strategic adap-tations made by Chinese students. The study showed that despite various intercultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

12 Q. Gu et al.

challenges and struggles, most students managed to survive the demands of thelearning and living environment, and to change and develop.

In Lost in Translation, Eva Hoffman concluded that her Polish insights could notbe regained in their purity because ‘there is something I know in English too’ (1989,273). The Polish and English languages and cultures had been blended into her senseof self in creation of the ‘new woman’.

No, there’s no returning to the point of origin, no regaining of childhood unity. Experi-ence creates style, and style, in turn, creates a new woman … Polish insights cannot beregained in their purity; there’s something I know in English too … When I speak Polishnow, it is infiltrated, permeated, and inflected by the English in my head. Each languagemodified the other, crossbreeds with it, fertilizes it. (Hoffman 1989, 273)

Therein lies the power of intercultural experience.

Methodology

The study combined quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The first stage, carriedout in November 2006, was a questionnaire survey to all 1288 first-year internationalundergraduates at four UK universities – two ‘old’ universities (institutions which pre-date 1992) and two ‘new’ ones (former polytechnics). Working with the InternationalOffices at the universities, both paper and electronic versions were distributed to allnew entrants, and resulted in a 19% rate of return. The survey provided a baselinedescription of the sample students’ purposes for their overseas studies, expectationsand initial impressions and a range of personal, social and academic challenges thatthey had experienced in the initial phase of their studies. Preliminary findings informedthe design of the case studies in the second stage of the research.

In the second stage, from among those who volunteered, 10 students from differentcountries and studying different disciplines were chosen as case studies for a series ofindividual interviews to explore their experiences over a 15-month period. The selec-tion of the case study students took into account their ethnicity, gender, and the contentsof their responses to the first round survey. The qualitative data were gathered using:

● Four semi-structured interviews over the course of their first two years of study,which investigated narratives of the histories of the students and the key issuesshaping their experiences over time.

● Narrative interviews with assistance of an instrument adapted from the VITAEstudy (Day et al. 2006) which required students to recall peaks and troughsduring their stay in the UK and to identify ‘turning points’ (Strauss 1959), i.e.key moments and experiences that had had a significantly positive or negativeimpact on their perceptions of their effective management of their study, livesand communication with others. They related how these were managed (or notmanaged) over time (the lines were known as ‘Managing the Ups and Downs ofLiving and Studying (MUDLS)’, see Appendix 1).

● Diaries and email exchanges over time.● One focus group meeting among the case study students, employed to consoli-

date themes and verify findings.

The final data gathering took the form of a second survey designed to examine theextent to which the qualitative findings may be extrapolated to the larger population

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 13

from which the case study samples were originally drawn. Despite some practicaldifficulties (e.g. a number of students changed their addresses and contact detailswithout informing their universities), with support of the International Offices of theparticipating universities, the second survey achieved a satisfactory response rate of10% (N = 126).

Synthesis of data analysis

The quantitative analysis was conducted in parallel with the initial qualitative datacollection and analysis and helped to inform the design of the latter. Findings from thequalitative analysis provided bases for the second-round questionnaire survey. Thecomparison, integration and synthesis of findings of both analyses aimed to increasevalidity and reliability within the limitations of the study, and emerging theories ofintercultural adaptation were tested and developed over the research period. Thus, thedifferent analytic procedures progressively integrated and triangulated various formsof data, provided grounds for continuing problem reformulation, and facilitatedextended understandings relating to the essence of intercultural adaptation over thecourse of the study.

Learning and personal growth in a ‘foreign’ context: key themes

The research revealed the complexities of international students’ experiences both interms of (1) their maturation and human development and (2) their intercultural andacademic adaptation to different educational environments, cultures and societies.These two experiences influenced students’ perceptions of their changes over time.

Key findings will be presented under four related themes: (1) change influences;(2) conditions for change; (3) change as achievement; and (4) a locus of self: identity,agency and resilience.

Theme 1: Change influences

The design enabled the research to take into account a wide range of influences uponinternational students’ experiences, including those embedded within their presentstudy location, their personal and professional lives in their home countries, and thepersonal and academic qualities of the student themselves (Figure 2). The data posi-tioned the students as active agents or participants (Blumer 1969; Goffman 1959) in aholistic four-dimension framework (Figure 2). The extent of their change, adaptationand development influences, and is influenced by, the relative strength of theirpersonal histories, their interactions with others and the current educational andsocietal environments which they experience. It was not the influences themselves,therefore, but the management of the interaction between these in different phases oftheir studies which contributed strongly to the positive or negative nature of theirintercultural experiences.Figure 2. Four-dimension change influences on the nature of international students’ intercultural experiences.

Initial ‘shock’: student life and academic studies

For most respondents to the Wave 1 survey, the challenges of adapting to a differentacademic culture appeared to be more acute than adapting to a different cultural andsocial environment. As indicated by Figures 3 and 4 which compare their expected

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

14 Q. Gu et al.

adaptation issues prior to their departure for the UK with those that they reportedexperiencing, students were surprised at the extent to which adaptation to theacademic environment became the greater preoccupation.Figure 3. A comparison of ‘worries’ before and after students’ arrival in the UK: student life.Figure 4. A comparison of ‘worries’ before and after students’ arrival in the UK: academic studies.

Student life. Prior to their departure for the UK, survey respondents were mostworried about (1) their financial situations (61%); (2) feeling lonely (44%) and (3)homesick (35%). Three months into their undergraduate study, financial worriesremained as the dominant concern for the large majority of the students (59%), withfood a distant second (32%) and loneliness third (30%) (Figure 3).

Academic studies. Worrying about failing exams and essays remained a constantconcern for the large majority of the survey respondents – both before their arrival inthe UK and in the first term of their undergraduate study (Figure 4).

Exposure to new pedagogies was reported as a challenge for over a third of thesurvey students. The most unexpected concern was ‘feeling embarrassed if unable toanswer questions in class’: a marginal 7% before arrival in the UK, compared with44% by the time of the first survey, reported such worries. Moreover, 18% worriedabout speaking up in class discussions before arrival, while 36% did after arrival. Inaddition, more than one in five reported that establishing relationships with lecturers(3% pre-departure versus 23% after arrival) and understanding their expectations(10% pre-departure and 27% after arrival) were major unexpected challenges.

These reported ‘unexpected’ worries point to areas in which early universitysupport is mainly required. Moreover, targeted university training on pre-departurepreparations could help smooth international students’ initial transition into their newlearning and living environments.

Figure 2. Four-dimension change influences on the nature of international students’ intercul-tural experiences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 15

Language use and understanding

Most students (over 80%) in the first survey reported that they were confident aboutusing the English language both inside and outside the classroom. The distribution oftheir views was positively skewed in relation to all five items on language use.Students were particularly happy with their command of English for understandinglectures (N = 194, 91%) and for social and practical use outside of the classroom (N =171, 80%). Evidence from the second survey and case studies indicates, as might be

Figure 3. A comparison of ‘worries’ before and after students’ arrival in the UK: student life.

Figure 4. A comparison of ‘worries’ before and after students’ arrival in the UK: academicstudies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

16 Q. Gu et al.

expected, a marked growth in students’ confidence in using the English language foracademic purposes over the first two years of their studies.

Teaching staff’s feedback on students’ work was perceived as particularly impor-tant for those who needed an English language certificate for their studies (75% versus56%). However, the research also suggests that academic concerns were broadlysimilar between those who needed an English language certificate (where English maynot be their native language) and those who did not. For example, there was nostatistically significant difference in the perceived level of academic confidence andadjustment between these two groups of students.

With regard to communication for social purposes, evidence suggests that amastery of the form of the English language and an understanding of the ‘hidden’societal and cultural values and norms attached to the language are equally important.For example, Tristan from Trinidad stated,

I was sort of expecting … well coming from a background where I was being exposedto American culture and I thought that British culture and American culture were the samething and I didn’t realise that they weren’t so similar. Just minor things like humour basi-cally – I don’t get British humour that much. I sort of identify more with American humour.

Theme 2: Conditions for change

A previous paper has reported on findings which related to initial uncertainties,patterns and influences of organisational and academic tutor support, friendshippatterns and peer culture (Schweisfurth and Gu 2009). These showed:

(1) In terms of academic conditions: ● Although these were major issues early in international students’ studies,

placing them on a perceived unequal footing with other students, most expe-rienced a marked growth in intercultural and academic confidence over time.

● While university support was perceived as positive overall, it was clear thatmuch depended on the commitment of particular individuals and depart-ments. This resulted in a rather ‘patchy’ set of experiences.

(2) In terms of social conditions: ● Beyond the university, there was much appreciation among the students of

the multicultural nature of the wider British society; however, the opportu-nities to experience the UK culture were perceived by case study studentsas limited.

● Cultural bonds with people culturally similar to themselves appeared tohave an important role to play in the formation of students’ friendshippatterns, despite their willingness and efforts to integrate with British andinternational students from countries other than their own.

● Arguably, what these students were experiencing was a youth subculturewhich was not broadly representative of the wider culture, but contextual-ised within the unique university environment. In this study in particular, thecampus-based universities constituted a ‘bubble’ in which most studentslived, studied, socialised, and in some cases worked: very convenient, butalso potentially isolating.

This paper draws attention to two other academic and social conditions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 17

Academic conditions

Integration with UK students. In both surveys, there were different views regardingintegrating and working with UK students. Whilst half of the respondents found itdifficult to get to know and work with the UK students, the other half reported other-wise. However, amongst those who required a language certificate for their studies inthe second survey (N = 64), the majority felt that it was particularly difficult for themto mix with UK students (63% versus 37%), suggesting that language confidence mayhave been an issue for these students. Case study data also indicated gaps in culturalvalues and behaviours between home students and international students which posedchallenges for academic and social integration.

Social conditions

Feelings of ‘powerlessness’ and ‘lack of a sense of belonging’. In both surveys closeto half of the respondents (49% and 48%) indicated that they were unhappy with theirsocial life. In addition, almost a third (approximately 32% in both surveys) reportedthat they often felt lonely while studying in the UK. Some students provided a detailedaccount of their feelings of ‘powerless’ and ‘lack of a sense of belonging’ while livingin the UK:

Back home I had a career and a future. I was in control of my own life, but I’ve lost track ofthat now. Because I had authority [as a hotel manager]. Here I’m virtually powerless …Sometimes I miss ‘home’. Sometimes I miss my parents. Sometimes I miss my mum. Some-times I just miss being a manager in the hotel. I miss my workplace. (Doris, Cameroon)

I was just wondering why I didn’t feel lonely at all when I first came here – because Ididn’t know what was going to happen. So every day was a new day … But this time Icame back [after Easter break] … I know I’m going to give a presentation and have lotsof preparations for my study … and every day is the same. To be honest I don’t like mypersonal life here. I enjoy my study life but my personal life is kind of boring … I justfeel that I don’t belong here. It’s not my place. I’m the guest and the guest is always lesspowerful. (Jiayi, China)

The above accounts support Furnham’s (2004, 17) argument that, ‘foreign studentsface several difficulties, some exclusive to them (as opposed to native students)’. Inour study, these particular difficulties were shown to be caused by challenges tostudents’ social and professional identities (as in the case of Doris who had a profes-sional career in her home country) and unfamiliarity with societal values, structuresand systems and the associated feelings of ‘being rejected by, or rejecting, membersof the new culture’ and the new environment (Oberg 1960, cited in Furnham 2004, 17)(as in the case of Jiayi). As Lewthwaite (1986) observed in his study, ‘the differencesin values, attitudes and beliefs between home and host cultures were seen as great andcoupled with the sense of loss of the familiar (including food) put considerable pres-sure on the student’. Twenty years on, his observation continues, it seems, to apply tosome students.

Theme 3: Change as achievement

Academic achievement

The most prominent academic achievements were related to students’ perceivedmanagement of the ‘new’ pedagogy and learning styles. Towards the end of their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

18 Q. Gu et al.

second academic year, the large majority of the second survey students reported thatthey had become more:

(1) Organised in managing their time for studies (73%).(2) Committed to their course of study (82%).(3) Confident about using a greater range of study skills (77%).(4) Comfortable in small-group discussion (71% versus 29%).(5) Confident about managing independent studies (72% versus 28%).

In addition, the large majority of the students had begun to appreciate the role of classdiscussion in their learning. In total, 85% agreed that student discussion in class washelpful for their learning, and within this, 16% strongly agreed.

Perceptions of cultures and acceptance of differences

Over half (54%) of the second survey respondents reported that their understandingof the host (UK) culture had improved. In addition, 93% indicated that they hadbecome more appreciative of their home cultural values. However, ample evidencesuggests that the consequences of the international students’ intercultural experiencestranscend their improved perceptions of the host culture. They had become moreaccepting of people with different attitudes and values. This was confirmed by 70%of respondents in the second survey.

It’s an interesting experience and you can see how different the countries in the worldare and how different people behave and for them that is the natural way and that is howyou should behave … It’s a very valuable learning experience. (Maxwell, Germany)

Personal achievement

In addition to their academic achievement, the research findings also point to theimportance of personal achievement for the large majority of the students involved.The three greatest personal achievements reported by students in the second surveywere: (1) personal independence (67%); (2) broadened life experiences and interests(56%); and (3) improved interpersonal and communication skills (41%).

All case study students shared these personal achievements and rated their ‘self-determination’ as the key factor in sustaining their achievements in the host country.For example,

I am planning to push myself to do things that I don’t really like to do … push myselfoutside this comfort area … at first you are not confident but then time will pass and youhear yourself saying: yeah, I’ve done a good job, actually. (Guzal, Kyrgystan)

Results of the second survey confirmed the case study findings. The top three highlyrated factors which were perceived as having contributed to students’ academic andpersonal achievements included: (1) self-determination (64%); (2) support fromparents (21%); and (3) support from friends here (12%).

Taken together, findings of the research strongly suggest that, despite varioussocial, cultural, academic and personal challenges which international students mayexperience during their stay in the UK, most manage to change and develop – notbecause of their dependence upon others, but the exercise of their own agency andresilience to achieve and succeed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 19

Theme 4: A locus of self: identity, agency and resilience

Murphy-Lejeune (2003: 113) describes the experience of adaptation and learningabroad as ‘a maturing process’ – ‘Rather than a total personality change, this processtakes on the shape of a personal expansion, an opening of one’s potential universe’.We argue that the driving force and essential qualities learners require to achieve such‘personal expansion’ are more significant and go well beyond cultural models. Thefindings indicate that it is the interaction of these international students with theirparticular living and studying environments that facilitates change. This suggests notonly that constructs shaped by culture can be changed, but that the nature of each indi-vidual’s motivations and experiences can be major factors. This is in contrast to deter-ministic notions of culture and learner. For example,

I’ve got two sets of values: one is for here and one is for China … I think they are justnatural … I’m a grown-up here. When I went back to China, I just went back to beingthe same – who I was – before I came here. (Jiayi, China)

The situation is quite strange because for me, I am not good in either Chinese or English.I am just in the middle. (Alanna, Macau)

I’ll always be changed by what I experienced here, and by other cultures I saw here.(Nadia, Slovakia)

The case studies in particular reveal students who were social actors, with proactive,positive attitudes towards the host society and who had the ability to take control oftheir own process of adaptation. There is evidence of a strong sense of agency andresilience in their process of self-determined and purposeful strategic adaptation:

each of us – you have an idea of what sort of person you want to be and we have amillion reasons not to be that person, like ‘doing that is not such a big deal’, and thingslike that. Well, I found not thinking about it has this effect: ‘it sounds interesting; Iwant to do it; I want to do it better’ … I guess being older you sort of realise … I meannot that you can’t be happy as a child, but you have to become responsible for youractions. (Rina, Malaysia)

For most students, going to university is a further step on a journey of self-discoveryin which they are able to assess themselves and hear themselves being assessed byothers in a range of personal, social and academic settings. They must rely upon them-selves to survive and flourish. New skills are learned and qualities developed whichenable them to construct new identities where appropriate. For international studentsthese processes are more complex and challenging, since they must also adapt to newand sometimes threatening norms of behaviour, languages and academic pedagogieson a number of personal, social and emotional levels. Establishing a ‘locus of self’ insuch circumstances is likely to require a different order of change competencies andresilience.

It’s [studying in England] opened up my thinking processes … When you are born andbrought up in a restrictive environment, everything is about family and you only have avery limited view on things. But when you go to another country and study and you meetpeople from other countries, then it opens up your perspective and you realise that every-thing in the world is not the same … You are so torn between being yourself and whatthey want you to do – what others want you to do. (Raveena, India)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

20 Q. Gu et al.

Conclusions: managing transitions

The research suggests that despite the challenges embedded in the academic and socialconditions, most international students managed to change, adapt, develop andachieve. It also shows that international students’ intercultural learning experiencesare both transitional and transformational and necessitate identity change to a greateror lesser extent. There are two types of transition: one is related to students’ ownmaturation and the other is related to their improved intercultural understanding andcompetence. As they interact within different educational environments, culturesand society, they continue to experience improved knowledge, awareness, skills andattitudes which enable them to function effectively within both their host and homecountries. The process of identity change is, therefore, interwoven with the growth oftheir maturity and interculturality.

The research findings challenge the notion that international students’ interculturaladaptation is linear and passive (in the sense that it is externally expected) and pointto the presence of a complex set of shifting associations between language mastery,social interaction, personal development and academic outcomes. It is the manage-ment of this amalgam, as well as the availability of differentiated and timely supportwhich results in intercultural adaptation, and the successful reconfiguration of ‘iden-tity’. Moreover, this research suggests that personal, pedagogical and psychologicalfactors are as important as organisational and social cultures in influencing students’adaptation, and ultimate success.

The research does, on the one hand, reinforce the ‘richness and fragmentation’ ofintercultural experience, as described by Kim (2005). On the other hand, as senses ofbelonging and alienation co-exist, and as learners initially fear and then appreciatenew ways of learning, we begin to see how the international student as agent of his orher own success creates a coherent trajectory out of these fragments and contradic-tions. The cross-cultural is not only within the intercultural: it is within themselves.

A final note: Although some differences in students’ perceptions of their experi-ences by country of origin, subjects of study and length of stay were identified in bothsurveys, the limited number of questionnaire returns did not allow statistically robustconclusions. Nonetheless, ample evidence from both the surveys and the case studiessuggests that there are more common patterns of challenges, change and developmentamongst the undergraduate international students than differences. This evidenceneeds to be seen in the context of other studies in this growing area of inquiry. This isa fairly modest piece of research situated specifically among UK undergraduates, andgiven the importance of the study and living situations of these subjects, its insightsneed to be explored further in different sorts of institutions and with different groupsof students. As internationalisation in higher education continues to be both a globalforce and a day-to-day lived experience, and as interest in this phenomenon grows, sowill understanding.

It is perhaps appropriate to close with the quote below from a case study student,which indicates more profound change, or perhaps more appropriately, growth, of hisown choosing:

But at the end of the day, your experience depends mostly on you. What you put in, youget back out, and so I would advise any fresher, or any person living away or thinkingof going away to study: … Keep an open mind, try new things, and be friendly. You havenothing to lose, and everything to gain … I actually have had the most amazing experi-ence over the past couple of years. I’ve seen and done things I would never have dreamt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 21

of, and I know I have made the most important decision of my life to come to England.(Tristan, Trinidad)

Note1. International students are for the purposes of this study and paper defined as all students

from outside the UK, including those from the EU who do not pay ‘international’ levelfees.

ReferencesAdler, P. 1975. The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology 15, no. 4: 13–23.Anderson, L.E. 1994. A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International

Journal of Intercultural Relationships 18: 293–328.Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalisation. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.Berger, P.L., and Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth,

UK: Penguin.Blair, T. 1999. Attracting more international students, June 18. http://www.number10.gov.uk/

output/Page3369.asp.Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.Bö[odblac]hm, A., D. Davis, D. Meares, and B. Pearce. 2002. Global student mobility 2025: Analysis

of global competition and market share. Sydney: IDP.British Council. 2007. The Prime Minister’s Initiative for international education. http://

www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-pmi.htm.British Council. 2008. April 24. http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/press-office/press-

releases/international-student-of-the-year-20080424/.Burslem, D.A. 2004. Preface. In International students in UK universities and colleges:

Broadening our horizons – Report of the UKCOSA survey, 6–7. London: The Council forInternational Education.

Byram, M. 2003. On being ‘bicultural’ and ‘intercultural’. In Intercultural experience andeducation, ed. G. Alred, M. Byram, and M. Fleming, 50–66. Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Byram, M., A. Nichols, and D. Stevens. 2001. Introduction. In Developing interculturalcompetence in practice, ed. M. Byram, 1–8. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Byrnes, F.C. 1965. Americans in technical assistance: A study of attitudes and responses totheir role abroad. New York: Praeger.

Coleman, J.A. 2004. Study abroad. In Routledge encyclopaedia of language teaching andlearning, ed. M. Byram, 582–4. London: Routledge.

Day, C.W., G. Stobart, P. Sammons, A. Kington, Q. Gu, R. Smees, and T. Mujtaba. 2006.Variations in teachers’ work, lives and effectiveness. Final report for the VITAE Project.London: DfES.

De Vita, G., and P. Case. 2003. Rethinking the internationalization agenda in UK highereducation. Journal of Further and Higher Education 27: 383–98.

de Wit, H. 2008. Changing trends in the internationalisation of higher education.http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/seminarpapers/deWitPres061008.pdf (accessedDecember 10, 2008).

Friedman, T.L. 2005. The world is flat. London: Penguin Books.Furnham, A. 2004. Foreign students’ education and culture shock. The Psychologist 17, no. 1:

16–19.Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Gu, Q., and M. Schweisfurth. 2006. Who adapts? Beyond cultural models of ‘the’ Chinese

learner. Language, Culture and Curriculum 19, no. 1: 74–89.Guardian. 2005. Numbers up for overseas students, April 5. http://education.guardian.co.uk/

students/overseasstudents/story/0,,1452033,00.html.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

22 Q. Gu et al.

Guardian. 2006. Who will be welcomed to Britain, March 8. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1725982,00.html#article_continue.

Gudykunst, W., ed. 2005. Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hoffman, E. 1989. Lost in translation. London: William Heinemann.Kim, M.S. 2005. Culture-based conversational constraints theory: Individual- and cultural-

level analyses. In Theorizing about intercultural communication, ed. W.B. Gudykunst,93–118. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, P.M., and M. Baxter Magolda. 2005. A developmental model of intercultural maturity.Journal of College Student Development 46: 571–92.

Knight, J. 1999. Internationalization of higher education. In Quality and internationalizationin higher education, ed. J. Knight and H. de Wit, 13–28. Paris: Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development, IMHE Publication.

Knight, J. 2004. Internationalization remodelled: Definition, approaches and rationales.Journal of Studies in International Education 8: 5–31.

Knight, J., and H. de Wit. Eds. 1997. Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacificcountries. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: European Association for Education (EAIE) incooperation with IDP Australia and the Program on Institutional Management in HighierEducation (IMHE) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD).

Landreman, L. 2003. A multidimensional model of intercultural consciousness: A reconceptu-alization of multicultural competence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAssociation for the Study of Higher Education, November, in Poland, OR.

Leung, C., R. Pe-Puab, and W. Karnilowicz. 2006. Psychological adaptation and autonomyamong adolescents in Australia: A comparison of Anglo-Celtic and three Asian groups.International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30: 99–118.

Lewthwaite, M. 1986. A study on international students’ perspectives on cross-culturaladaptation. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 19: 167–85.

Li, A., and M. Gasser. 2005. Predicting Asian international students’ sociocultural adjust-ment: A test of two mediation models. International Journal of Intercultural Relations29: 561–76.

Mori, S. 2000. Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal ofCounselling and Development 78, no. 2: 137–44.

Murphy-Lejeune, E. 2003. An experience of interculturality: Student travellers abroad. InIntercultural experience and education, ed. G. Alred, M. Byram, and M. Fleming, 101–13.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Oberg, K. 1960. Culture shock: Adjustment at new cultural environment. Practical Anthro-pology 7: 177–82.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2007. Globalisation andhigher education. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008. Policy brief:Cross-border higher education and development. Paris: OECD.

Paulston, C.B. 1992. Biculturalism: Some reflections and speculations. In Sociolinguisticperspectives on bilingual education, ed. C.B. Paulston, 116–30. Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Rizvi, F. 2008. Epistemic virtues and cosmopolitan learning. The Australian EducationalResearcher 35, no. 1: 17–35.

Sanderson, G. 2008. A foundation for the internationalisation of the academic self. Journal ofStudies in International Education 12: 276–307.

Schweisfurth, M., and Q. Gu. 2009. Exploring the experiences of international students in UKHigher Education: Possibilities and limits of interculturality in university life. Special issueof Intercultural Education 20, no. 2. (in press).

Searle, W., and C. Ward. 1990. The prediction of psychological and socio-cultural adjust-ment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14:449–64.

Seddoh, F.K. 2001. Internationalisation of higher education: What for, how and at what cost?International Association of Universities Newsletter 7, no. 3: 1, 3.

Strauss, A. 1959. Mirrors and masks: The search for identity. San Francisco: Sociology Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3

Compare 23

UKCISA. 2007. Benchmarking the provision of services for international students in highereducation institutions. London: The Council for International Education.

UKCOSA. 2004. International students in UK universities and colleges: Broadening our hori-zons – Report of the UKCOSA survey. London: The Council for International Education.

UNESCO. 2006. Global education digest 2006: Comparing education statistics across theworld. Paris: UNESCO.

Universities UK. 2006. Universities UK response to immigration point system proposal,March 7. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/mediareleases/show.asp?MR=451.

Uvali[cacute] -Trumbi[cacute] , S., J. Daniel, and P. West. 2007. The role of international online courses inthe worldwide provision of education. Paper presented at the European Association ofDistance Teaching Universities 20th Anniversary Conference, September 8–9, in Lisbon.

Ward, C., and A. Kennedy. 1993. Where’s the ‘culture’ in cross-cultural transition: Compara-tive studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 24: 221–49.

Ward, C., and A. Kennedy. 1999. The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations 23: 659–77.

Appendix 1. Managing the Ups and Downs of Living and Studying (MUDLS)

c c

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:59

05

Oct

ober

201

3