University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

(USC Thesis Other)

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 1
!

ADVISING AND ACCULTURATION VARIABLES AS PREDICTORS OF SATISFACTION,
SENSE OF BELONGING, AND PERSISTENCE AMONG INTERNATIONAL
UNDERGRADUATES

by

Lisa Mataczynski

__________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Lisa Mataczynski

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 3

Acknowledgements
I would like to take a moment to thank those who have encouraged me in my educational
journey and ultimately helped to make this study possible. First, I want to thank my family for
their love and support. A heartfelt thank you goes out to my parents, Gene and Nancy, for
always encouraging me to do my best in school. Thank you for believing in me and for the
sacrifices you have made to help me get to where I am. I am so grateful and proud to be your
daughter. I also offer my deepest appreciation to my sister Jill Jaquish and her family for
providing me with immeasurable joy and keeping me grounded throughout this process.
I want to express my deepest thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, and my
committee members, Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr. Maryann Wu for their wisdom, guidance, and
constructive feedback. You are strong, positive, role models and I feel very fortunate to have
been given the opportunity to work with the three of you. Additionally, Dr. Chung, I am grateful
for your support in developing a clear direction for my dissertation research. I came to you with
scattered thoughts and you provided remarkable guidance that helped me mold them into a viable
study.
I wish also to thank my inspirational mentors at the University of Minnesota. I would
like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ty Tashiro. Because of your mentorship I was able to begin
my dissertation study with a solid research methods foundation. The amazing guidance I
received from Julie Ann Edin, Peggy McCalla, Holly Hatch-Surisook, Becky Mooney,
Christiane Bartels, and Jan O’Brien at a critical time in my career development was nothing short
of exceptional. You taught me the meaning of excellent academic advising. Without your
encouragement to pursue my chosen career path and the reassurance that I had the ability to
continue my education, this study would never have transpired.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 4

I could not have made it through the program without the camaraderie and support of my
thematic group and the 2010 Tuesday cohort. I am thankful for the encouragement that was
offered by my Ed.D. colleagues. I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to get to know each
of you.
Finally, my acknowledgements would not be complete without a special thank you to
specific members of the USC community who, in numerous ways, supported my dissertation
research. I offer my sincere thanks to Dr. Jeremy Abramson, Dr. Michael Crowley, the faculty
of the Information Technology Program, Heather Cartagena and the students who volunteered
their time to participate in this study.
!
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 5

Table of Contents
Abstract 6!
CHAPTER I: Overview of the Study 7 !
Background of the Study 8!
Theoretical Framework 12!
Purpose of the Study 16!
Importance of the Study 17!
Organization of the Study 19!
CHAPTER II: Review of Literature 21!
Academic Advising Relationship 21!
Advisor-Advisee Activities 33!
Country of Citizenship 38!
Acculturation 40!
Summary of Literature Review 43!
Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypotheses 46!
CHAPTER III: Methodology 48!
Participants 48!
Instruments 53!
Procedure 60!
Data Analysis 60!
CHAPTER IV: Results 62!
Preliminary Analyses 62!
Analysis of Research Questions 65!
Post-Hoc Analysis 69!
CHAPTER V: Discussion 72!
Summary and Discussion of Main Findings 72!
Limitations 78!
Directions for Future Research 80
Implications for Practice 81!
Conclusion 86!
References 88!
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 98!
Appendix B: Demographic Information 100!
Appendix C: Academic Advising Inventory 102!
Appendix D: Supplemental Advising Questions 106!
Appendix E: Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale 108!
Appendix F: Sense of Belonging to Campus 109!
Appendix G: Intent to Persist 110!

!
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 6

Abstract
Guided by the work of Hurtado and Carter (1997) as an alternative to Tinto’s theory of student
departure (1993), the purpose of this quantitative study was to explore the relationship of
institutional and cultural factors to satisfaction with academic advising, sense of belonging to
campus and retention among international undergraduate students in the United States.
Participants included 301 undergraduate international students who completed an online survey
that examined the advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, country of citizenship,
acculturation, advising satisfaction, sense of belonging, and intent to persist. Measurement tools
utilized included the Academic Advising Inventory (Winston & Sandor, 1984), Stephenson
Multigroup Acculturation Scale (Stephenson, 2000), and Sense of Belonging to Campus
questionnaire (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). Findings indicated that the
advising relationship and acculturation were significant predictors of international students’
satisfaction with academic advising, and acculturation and advising satisfaction were important
influences on sense of belonging. Additionally, advisor-advisee activities, advising satisfaction,
and sense of belonging were important variables in predicting intent to persist to graduation. The
results of this study provide direction for higher education administrators and researchers in their
efforts to gain a better understanding of factors leading to international student success.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 7

CHAPTER I: Overview of the Study
International students represent a noteworthy segment of college students in the United
States. The number of international students enrolled in the U.S. increased by 32% over 10 years
to a record high of 723,277 in 2010 (Institute of International Education, 2011). During the
2010-2011 academic year, this group contributed roughly $20.23 billion to the U.S. economy
(NAFSA Association of International Educators, 2010).
In addition to facing many of the same academic challenges as their American
counterparts, international college students experience unique challenges such as language
difficulties, social and cultural adjustment stressors, financial problems and the demands of
adapting to a new educational system (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986; Charles & Stewart, 1991). If
the stress becomes too great, students are at risk of dropping out prior to the completion of their
degrees. With educational budgets tightening, University officials must determine the best use of
their financial resources to increase international student success. Academic advising has been
shown to be a promising field in which university leadership can invest to help improve student
performance and persistence (Beal & Noel, 1980; Braxton & McClendon, 2002; Habley &
McClanahan, 2004; Hossler, 1990).
Academic advisors are in a position to help international students succeed. Advising is
the most frequently cited student service positively associated with student persistence (Hossler,
1990). Additionally, academic advising is one of the most powerful institutional factors that
reduces college student departure and enhances students’ acclimation to college (Braxton &
Mundy, 2001). High-quality advising, defined by student perception, was associated with lower
attrition rates through effects on GPA, satisfaction in the role of a student, the value of a college
education for future employment, and intent to leave the university (Metzner, 1989). The
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 8

academic advisor serves as an agent between the institution and the international student, helping
the student adjust to academic demands and achieve academic success (Charles & Stewart, 1991).
According to the landmark report, What Works in Student Retention, which assessed student
satisfaction and retention across hundreds of higher education institutions, academic advising
was ranked as a leading factor promoting student persistence (Beal & Noel, 1980). Twenty-four
years later, when the study was replicated, the results remained the same (Habley & McClanahan,
2004); academic advisors promote retention.
Satisfaction with advising is important. The National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) (2005) data indicated that students who rate their advising as good or excellent are more
likely to interact with faculty, identify the school’s environment as more supportive, and are
more satisfied with their overall college experience (Gordon, Habley, Grites, & Associates,
2008). Additional analysis put forth by Gordon et al. (2008) of the NSSE (2005) data found that,
“the quality of academic advising is the single most powerful predictor of satisfaction with the
campus environment for students at four-year schools” (p. 73), where quality is defined by
student perception.
Despite the continuously increasing number of international students pursuing degrees in
the U.S. and the documented benefits of academic advising, little research has been conducted on
international students’ experiences with academic advising. Recognizing the current gap in the
literature, this study seeks to explore variables that contribute to international student satisfaction
with advising and ultimately retention.
Background of the Study
International students comprise an important segment of diversity on university
campuses; however, this valuable diversity can make it challenging for international students to
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 9

succeed in their new surroundings. Common stressors among international students in the
United States include language anxiety, financial problems, educational concerns, and
sociocultural difficulties. Ability to speak the language is the predominant concern for
international students regarding their educational experience abroad (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986).
A lack of English proficiency will impact students’ ability to understand lectures, accomplish
course readings, participate in class discussion, and answer questions on an exam. It may also
affect them socially and psychologically, having a lasting impact on their self-concept, and
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspects of adjustment. International students may feel
uncomfortable navigating daily life, which can lead to insecure feelings and a diminished self-
efficacy (Chen, 1999).
Financial problems are the second most commonly expressed stressor international
students face. It is a common misperception that members of this group come from primarily
wealthy backgrounds. Many international students worry about having sufficient funds to pay
for their education and living expenses, which causes them to take on heavier course loads to
accelerate their academic progress (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986). Academic overload is especially
stressful for non-native English speakers who may also be facing academic restrictions placed on
them by their home governments, families, or financial sponsors (Charles & Stewart, 1991),
leading to greater financial strain.
Adjustment to a new educational system is another challenge for international students.
They may be uncomfortable choosing their own courses, taking multiple-choice tests, and being
asked to synthesize material instead of recalling memorized facts (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986).
The relatively informal environment of the U.S. college classroom along with required class
participation or presentations may be jarring (Chen, 1999).
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 10

Furthermore, social and cultural adjustment may impact international students. Students
may feel social isolation and alienation, loneliness and homesickness (Chen, 1999). Additionally,
students from collectivistic cultures could have a hard time in the individualistic American
society (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986). Social stigma may be attached to help-seeking behaviors so
students might not reach out for the help they need, which can negatively impact their
persistence (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986). Acculturative stress (i.e. culture shock) is a common
difficulty for these students. It results when individuals face problems because of intercultural
contact that cannot be overcome easily by simply assimilating or adjusting (Berry, 2006).
Furthermore, international students may experience racial discrimination and prejudice that can
derail a healthy acculturation process and negatively impact their psychological well-being
(Chen, 1999).
International students regularly encounter unique challenges during their degree
programs in the United States and academic advisors are in a position to help them persist and
graduate. Advisors can assist international students in achieving a greater connection to campus
and greater levels of learning and development. Academic advisors can help international
students adjust to a new environment but in doing so they must be careful not to treat
international students as a homogenous group. Instead, they must seek to understand ethnic
group and individual differences to address each student’s unique needs. Cultural sensitivity is
an essential component when advising international students (Charles & Stewart, 1991). It
involves an attitude of genuine caring and interest about each student and can lead to effective
advising (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986). International students from the same regions or countries
may face similar challenges adjusting to the educational system in the United States. The college
experience is interpreted differently by students depending on their country of origin and home
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 11

culture (Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). Culturally sensitive advisors take time to understand these
different worldviews. They understand that students’ values are, in part, made up by their home
cultures. However, although learning about cultural trends and students’ countries of citizenship
can enhance advising quality, advisors must be careful not to make sweeping generalizations
about their students based on their home countries. Therefore, in addition to between-group
differences, variations within cultural groups can be examined in an attempt to better assist
international students.
One of the most important measures of within-group variation is acculturation (Zane &
Mak, 2003). Acculturation involves multidimensional change in cultural values and behaviors
that results from continuous contact between two distinct cultural groups (Berry, 1997, 2003;
Stephenson, 2000). Research has suggested there are large group and individual differences in
acculturation. The amount of stress experienced and how well individuals psychologically and
socioculturally adapt varies. Students’ acculturation will vary along two dimensions – how
much they maintain their current identity and characteristics and how much they connect to their
new surroundings. Understanding students’ ethnic group differences and individual
acculturation levels allows advisors to assist with each student’s unique needs and by doing so,
increase students’ satisfaction with the academic advising they receive.
In addition to being mindful of students’ within- and between-group differences, advisors
need to contemplate how they build a relationship with each student and what activities they
engage in with their advisees. Advisors should strive to tailor each relationship to meet
individual students’ needs. For example, students’ comfort levels vary based on how much
direct advice they prefer to receive from an advisor. Additionally, the advisor-advisee activities
should vary based on the needs of each student. Topics discussed in each session should not
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 12

look exactly the same, but instead should be tailored to the individual. To increase advising
satisfaction, advisors need to be thoughtful about the relationships they build with each advisee
as well as the activities carried out in advising sessions.
In an effort to address the gap in literature, this study attempts to understand how
academic advisors can help international students adjust to their new environment. One goal of
this study is to explore how international student country of citizenship, acculturation, advising
relationship, and advisor-advisee activities contribute to the improvement of this population’s
satisfaction with advising and academic persistence.
Theoretical Framework
Researchers and administrators have spent countless hours trying to determine why
students persevere or drop out. The discussion below on this prominent topic of student
retention in higher education will provide the theoretical basis for the present study. It will begin
with an overview of Vincent Tinto's (1987) tremendously popular, and consequently often
unquestioned, theory on college student departure. Following this synopsis, critiques of the
theory that are especially important to consider when working with non-
traditional/underrepresented student populations, such as international students, will be reviewed.
One alternative concept, sense of belonging, will be presented as a modification to Tinto’s theory
and an explanation will be provided on why and how this psychological construct will be
incorporated into the present study.
Integration. The most widely accepted and frequently cited theory on college student
departure was created by Vincent Tinto (Guiffrida, 2006; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, &
Hayek, 2006; Tierney, 1992). Tinto derived his theory from Durkheim's (1951) work on
suicide. He compared leaving society to leaving school, finding in both scenarios a lack of a
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 13

feeling of belonging (Tinto, 1987). Additionally, Tinto used Van Gennep's (1960) transitional
model, and the notion of “breaking away” as a basis for his student departure theory, stating that
students must separate from “past communities” and integrate into their new college culture.
Tinto described a connection between environment and retention. Students’ pre-college
attributes are connected to their goals and commitments. Pre-college attributes consist of prior
qualifications, individual, and family attributes. Once students have entered college, these
attributes help determine their goal commitments and institutional commitments. Furthermore,
their pre-college attributes and commitments interact with their academic and social integration
(or lack thereof) to make up students’ dropout decisions. More specifically, these goals and
commitments work together with informal and formal social and academic college experiences.
The more a student is academically and socially integrated into the corresponding systems of the
school, the less likely they are to drop out (Tinto, 1987).
Emancipation and empowerment. Frequently, Tinto’s integration theory goes
unquestioned. It is the dominant theory pertaining to college student retention and is widely
applied by university administrators. It is employed to guide program development and
intervention strategies. Several years after Tinto published his seminal work on college student
retention, an article was written critiquing the individualistic nature of the theory. Tierney
(1992) was concerned about applying this theory to students who do not develop within an
individualistic culture. He questioned integration theory’s labeling of college as a “rite of
passage,” especially for those students raised to value a more collectivistic outlook (Tierney,
1992). For Tierney, a rite of passage meant moving to a new level within the same culture.
Most institutions of higher education in the United States were developed within a Eurocentric
framework and Tinto’s integration theory emphasizes mainstream U.S. culture; therefore,
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 14

international students are not attempting to navigate within their culture. By attending college in
the United States these students are navigating between cultures. Tierney (1992) suggests:
Rather than think about student participation from a social integrationist perspective, an
alternative model is to conceive of universities as multicultural entities where difference
is highlighted and celebrated. Accordingly, if we want our colleges and universities to be
multicultural we need theoretical models different from those of the social integrationists,
which in turn will call for different assumptions about reality and what must be done to
engage college students. (p. 604)
It is harmful to encourage separation from support systems and cultural traditions, especially
during this new and unfamiliar time because students need the familiarity and support of their
home communities (Tierney, 1992). Tierney (1992) stated practitioners must move “away from
a model of social integration and assimilation and toward a framework of emancipation and
empowerment” (p. 616).
Connection. Tinto’s college student departure theory evolved over time due to his own
research and others’ suggestions. However, it has been argued that even with the changes, the
theory lacks cultural consideration. Similar to Tierney’s critique, Guiffrida (2006) suggested a
change to make the theory more culturally sensitive. He thought the term integration should be
replaced with the term connection. Integration implies becoming socialized into the dominant
culture while abandoning a former culture. Connection recognizes the need to relate to the new
culture but does not imply a student must break away from a former community. Guiffrida
(2006) suggested:
The proposed changes allow the theory to recognize how diverse socialization
experiences impact motivation toward academic achievement and persistence, and, as a
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 15

result, provide a more comprehensive, multicultural understanding of student
commitment. (p. 467)
According to Guiffrida (2006), this is especially true for students holding cultural norms that are
collectivistic. In cultural identity terminology, the integration framework is suggesting students
should assimilate. This is an outdated, unnecessary request and the concept can be replaced by
models of acculturation (Guiffrida, 2006).
Sense of belonging. In addition to Tierney and Guiffrida, scholars who believed Tinto’s
model did not adequately address the racial-ethnic dimension of integration experiences also
suggested modifications. Hurtado and Carter (1997) proposed that greater attention should be
paid to students’ subjective sense of integration. They argued that Tinto’s integration theory was
primarily focused on behavior. Instead, they recommended examining sense of belonging, a
psychological construct that seeks to measure students’ feelings of inclusion on campus.
Additionally, they worried that instead of a shared responsibility between the student and the
institution, integration puts the burden entirely on the student to adapt and change while
attempting to plot a course toward success (Cheng, 2004; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Rendón,
Jalomo, & Nora, 2000). The theory behind sense of belonging suggests that international
students are able to feel part of the campus community without conforming to or adopting the
values of the majority (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). Researchers have expended upon the early sense
of belonging literature by included a wider range of racial and ethnic groups. African American,
Latino, and Asian Pacific American students report a less strong sense of belonging on campus
than Caucasian students; however, a smooth transition to college has been shown to have a
strong, positive association with a student’s sense of belonging (Johnson et al., 2007).
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 16

Literature on student retention suggests that contact with a significant person within the
school is a critical factor when a student is considering departure (Chickering & Gamson, 1987;
Glennen, Farren, & Vowell, 1996). Advisors are in a position to build positive relationships with
international students and increase their sense of belonging, and a strong sense of belonging to
campus theoretically improves retention. Therefore, in addition to investigating international
student satisfaction with advising, the present study will also examine a second outcome variable,
sense of belonging to campus. Lastly, because the present study will exchange Tinto’s variable
of integration with Hurtado and Carter’s variable of sense of belonging as a possible factor
contributing to student persistence, a third outcome variable, intent to persist, will be evaluated
to examine the potential relationship between sense of belonging and retention.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore institutional and cultural factors that may predict
satisfaction with academic advising in undergraduate international students. Additionally, it will
investigate an alternative to Tinto’s integration model by examining the relationship between
sense of belonging and intent to persist in international college students. More specifically, the
purpose is to determine if there is a connection between the advising relationship, advisor-
advisee activities, country of citizenship, and acculturation on advising satisfaction, sense of
belonging, and intent to persist among undergraduate international students.
Research questions. This study will investigate the following research questions:
RQ1. Are there ethnic group differences by countries of origin in advising satisfaction among
international college students?
RQ2. Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, and acculturation predict advising
satisfaction among international college students?
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 17

RQ3. Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, and advising
satisfaction predict sense of belonging among international college students?
RQ4. Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, advising satisfaction,
and sense of belonging predict intent to persist to graduation among international college
students?
Importance of the Study
The United States population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.
According to the Census Bureau, the minority population is projected to approach 50 percent by
2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). If this projection represents the country’s future demographic
reality, citizens will be challenged by a society with increasing cultural diversity. Additionally,
global interactions are increasing. Globalization creates the need for individuals to develop a
new set of skills to be able to successfully navigate across cultures in the emerging global society
(Sorrells, 2013; Suárez-Orozco, 2007). To enhance individuals’ interactions with one another, it
seems reasonable to work at identifying ways in which people can develop a greater openness to
racial and cultural diversity. Increasing acceptance and understanding between diverse
individuals can lead to a more harmonious society (Suárez-Orozco, 2007).
College students are in a prime position to enhance their cultural competence; the
majority of undergraduates are at the age identity formation occurs and time in school provides
exposure to new ideas, space for comparison, and experimentation. Thus, school officials can
foster identity development that promotes harmony among diverse students. Universities can
develop learning environments that promote and value diversity by exposing students to a variety
of perspectives that encourage them to examine, challenge, and refine their own beliefs.
Students educated in diverse institutions with opportunities to interact with diverse peers will be
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 18

better equipped to participate in an increasingly heterogeneous and complex society (Gurin, Dey,
Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). More specifically, diversity in a college setting can lead to enhanced
learning and democracy outcomes. Learning outcomes include active thinking and academic
skills and intellectual engagement. Democracy outcomes consist of racial and cultural
understanding, perspective taking, and citizenship engagement. By increasing these educational
outcomes students are more likely to leave college with skills needed to become leaders in a
pluralistic democracy (Gurin et al., 2002).
If an important goal of higher education is to assist students in becoming more culturally
competent, then fostering the interaction between international and domestic students can help
colleges and universities reach this goal. As indicated above, international students are a
continuously expanding segment of diversity on university campuses. They bring to the United
States a wide variety of perspectives to which domestic students can be exposed. Both domestic
and international students can learn from one another and expand their cross-cultural knowledge.
Students who attend a school with a diverse population are more likely to enhance their cultural
sensitivity and build the skills necessary to work effectively with people from a variety of
backgrounds (Zhao et al., 2005). With the growing international student population in the
United States, there is a greater need to understand their unique characteristics and find ways to
help them adjust and succeed in the American higher education system. Helping international
students persist through to graduation has the potential to cause both international and domestic
students to address their surroundings with a greater openness to racial and cultural diversity.
To help international students adjust to the social and academic demands of college life,
previous research suggests universities may wish to invest in resources that lead to an increase in
students’ satisfaction with advising and sense of belonging to campus. Students who feel a
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 19

psychological connection to their institution are more likely to persist (Hausmann, Schofield, &
Woods, 2007). Additionally, students who are satisfied with advising are more likely to be
retained (Crockett, 1978). “Students receiving effective academic advising tend to feel positive
not only about the process but the institution as well, and this positive attitude can be a strong
contributing factor to student persistence” (Crockett, 1978, p. 30). Furthermore, advisors may be
able to enhance students’ sense of belonging by providing critical social support as they
transition and adjust to college life (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, & Salomone, 2002; Johnson
et al., 2007).
This study seeks to discover factors that predict undergraduate international student
satisfaction with advising and sense of belonging to the campus community. The present study
will explore how advisors can best assist students by examining institutional and cultural
variables that predict satisfaction with advising. After determining if and how each variable is
connected with advising satisfaction, advisors can examine their performance and may choose to
alter their practice to better align with student needs. If advisors can better understand how
variations in these factors change the advising that students desire, they can tailor their assistance
to maximize satisfaction with advising for each student. Additionally, the direct connection
between advising satisfaction and sense of belonging has never been examined. Thus, the
present study will explore this potential relationship in the hopes of better understanding
variables that contribute to international student adjustment and persistence.
Organization of the Study
The remaining chapters have been organized as follows:
Chapter two provides an in-depth analysis on the academic advising literature, broken up
by advising relationship and advisor-advisee activities. An overview of student country of
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 20

citizenship and acculturation literature is also provided. Each of the independent variables
discussed are connected back to the dependent variables of advising satisfaction, sense of
belonging, and ultimately international student retention. Chapter three covers the methodology
used for this study, including the demographics of the students who participated, instruments
used, procedures for data collection, and the research design used to analyze the data. Chapter
four provides the results of the study, including an analysis of the data, along with answers to the
research questions posed. Chapter five is a discussion of the results reported and also includes
the study’s limitations as well as implications for researchers and practitioners interested in
improving international student academic advising satisfaction, sense of belonging, and retention.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 21

CHAPTER II: Review of Literature
The following review of literature examines influences on international student advising
satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence, including the influence of the advising
relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, and country of origin. The prominent
literature on each of these four areas will be presented below and their connection to advising
satisfaction, sense of belonging, and retention will be examined. The chapter will conclude by
proposing specific research questions and corresponding hypotheses that will be examined in an
effort to contribute to the collection of advising knowledge where existing research suggests
gaps exist.
Academic Advising Relationship
The nature of the relationship between advisor and advisee in a college setting has been a
central theme in the academic advising literature over the past four decades. The topic has
received a great deal of attention and sparked productive debate among the advising community.
Prescriptive, developmental, and academically centered advising will be discussed
chronologically and the reason for focusing specifically on these three types of advising will be
made clear. Following this historical discussion on types of advising relationships, research
pertaining to underrepresented students will be presented. Lastly, an overview of international
student academic advising research will bring this section to a close.
Prescriptive and developmental advising. In 1972 two seminal articles were written,
one by Crookston and the other by O’Banion, proposing a shift in the theoretical basis from
which advisors should work. The historically unquestioned advising relationship found itself
under review. Crookston and O’Banion both argued for the need to transcend the prescriptive
relationship, which was traditionally the standard relationship in a college advising setting
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 22

(Crookston, 1972; O’Banion, 1972). Prescriptive advising has often been compared to the
medical model. The advisor is analogous to the doctor and the advisee the patient, where the
doctor is the expert, makes a diagnosis, and prescribes a solution. Prescriptive advising is
typically tidy and quick. Once the advice is given the burden is placed on the student to carry
out the action prescribed. Crookston (1972) argued that academic advising should move toward
a developmental relationship where students are understood in a more holistic light. He stated,
“It follows that developmental counseling or advising is concerned not only with a specific
personal or vocational decision but also with facilitating the student’s rational processes,
environmental and interpersonal interactions, behavioral awareness, and problem-solving,
decision-making, and evaluation skills” (Crookston, 1972, p. 78). Crookston applied student
developmental concepts to academic advising for the first time and this connection reformed the
profession.
Around the same time as Crookston, O’Banion (1972) proposed an academic advising
model with similar objectives. He suggested the goal of advising was to assist students in
choosing a program of study that will improve their overall potential and included the following
dimensions: “(1) exploration of life goals, (2) exploration of vocational goals, (3) program
choice, (4) course choice, and (5) scheduling courses” (O’Banion, 1972, p. 10). He made the
connection between vocational goals and life goals, stating that who a person is and desires to be
determines his or her career choice. He believed that through the advising relationship students
could learn about most other services (e.g. financial aid, personal counseling, individual testing)
available on campus and he firmly believed counseling was the heart of academic advising.
O’Banion (1972) suggested college students explore their personal development, values, and
occupational choices with their advisor prior to selecting a specific program of study and tasks
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 23

such as class scheduling should be done with no assistance or with a counselor-aid. He was the
first to propose professional advisors, as opposed to faculty members, were best able to assist
students with the exploration process (O’Banion, 1972). When O’Banion (1994) revisited his
model years later, he changed his perspective on who should be doing advising, stating who
advises is not important but rather how well advising is conducted is what matters. Additionally,
he softened his stance against prescriptive advising, stating prescriptive activities formed a
critical foundation for the developmental approach.
Crookston and O’Banion laid the foundation for decades of advising theory discussion
that would follow. Winston and Sandor (1984) sought to develop a systematic, theoretically-
grounded instrument to measure developmental advising that was based on Crookston’s work.
They placed prescriptive advising on one end of a continuum and developmental on the other
and asked students about their academic advising preferences. The Academic Advising
Instrument (AAI) was created and the researchers were the first of many to report students prefer
a developmental advising relationship rather than a prescriptive one (Winston & Sandor, 1984).
Ten years later, however, after the creation of the measurement tool and subsequently authoring
a book on developmental advising, Winston addressed the advising community, concerned about
developmental advising’s lack of broad acceptance (Winston, Miller, Erder, & Grites, 1984;
Winston & Sandor, 1984; Winston, 1994). He proposed that the popularity of developmental
advising was limited, not because it was a weak theory, but because it had gone unnoticed by
those who hold the power in higher education. Although researchers were confirming its utility,
university leadership failed to notice. Winston (1994) reasoned this was because a university
community is made up of four cultures: collegial, managerial, negotiating, and developmental,
and the latter is often overshadowed by the others, especially during times of economic stress.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 24

“Because the developmental culture is philosophically opposed to the exercise of traditional
formal authority to further its aims and has a distaste for the use of political power to accomplish
its goals, it is usually in the minority on most campuses” (Winston, 1994, p. 115). He concluded
by acknowledging the uncertain utility of developmental advising along with a call for more
research to be conducted. The advising community responded to his request and over the next
two decades developmental advising became the most widely studied theory of advising (Daller,
Creamer, & Creamer, 1997).
At the same time Winston called for more research on developmental advising, Rooney
(1994) was praising the founders for their visionary thinking. Although Crookston and
O’Banion’s theories did not explicitly originate from diversity discussions, Rooney points out
their ideas were well ahead of their time as their theories are suitable for working with diverse
populations. He discussed the demographic changes in higher education and the challenge of
providing “advising services to all students in a way that is organized, differentiated, systematic,
and easily accessible” (Rooney, 1994, p. 37) He suggested that Crookston and O’Banion laid the
foundation from which the field should work and moving forward it is necessary to foster
collaboration between academic affairs and student services to meet the wide variety of student
needs.
In addition to Winston and Sandor (1984) reporting students’ preference for
developmental advising over prescriptive, other researchers have come to this conclusion as well.
As research in the field developed, more variables were introduced, thereby refining the advising
relationship knowledge and uncovering individual differences. Additionally, Rooney’s synthesis
of Crookston’s and O’Banion’s ideas reinforced the need for exploring the unique needs of each
student.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 25

Several studies have expanded the knowledge available regarding the advisor-advisee
relationship. For example, Alexitch (1997) used the AAI with a group of undergraduate students
attending a midsized Canadian university. She found that advising satisfaction positively
correlated with developmental advising style and that students would prefer a more
developmental advising style than they had received. Alexitch also found individual differences
in preferred advising style. For example, females preferred a higher level of developmental
advising than did males and students with lower grades preferred a higher level of developmental
advising than those with higher grades. Additionally, learning-oriented, as opposed to grade-
oriented students were more concerned with the style of advising than the content of the session.
Alexitch (2002) validated these findings with an additional study conducted several years later
with a larger group of participants. In addition, she added a help-seeking variable and found that
students who indicated a tendency to request help were more likely to prefer developmental
advising.
Similar to Alexitch’s findings, Crockett and Crawford (1989) found a preference for
developmental advising among the undergraduate students they surveyed. They found individual
differences as well. However, a portion of their findings contradicted Alexitch’s results.
Crockett and Crawford (1989) found students that experienced academic difficulties were more
dependent on advisors for decision-making, which is more characteristic of prescriptive than
developmental advising. To further complicate findings, Mottarella, Fritzsche, and Cerabino
(2004) found no gender differences when it came to advising style preference.
Although studies were confirming students’ satisfaction with developmental advising, it
did not mean students did not value prescriptive advising (Fielstein, 1994). Researchers were
discovering that students valued both. A study conducted at a midsized Midwest university
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 26

confirmed that students appreciated developmental advising, as they reported wanting to receive
more of it than they had; however, the interest in developmental advising did not decrease the
importance placed on prescriptive advising. Students actually reported prescriptive items were
of greater importance to them than developmental (Fielstein, Scoles, & Webb, 1992). The
researchers hypothesized that although the developmental approach is desired, students value
crucial information disseminated by the advisor as well.
As evidenced by the studies outlined above, there are some common trends but also
discrepancies in the empirical data regarding the academic advising relationship. This matter
will be revisited below when further research is presented on advising style as it relates to
specific populations. Prior to reviewing additional studies, an overview of alternative advising
relationship theory is warranted.
Academically centered advising. While empirical analysis was advancing the
prescriptive versus developmental advising discussion, a new, opposing style was introduced in
the literature as an alternative. A pair of university administrators argued that developmental
advising was vague, had lost sight of the central mission of higher education, and therefore must
be abandoned (Hemwall & Trachte, 1999). They suggested that developmental advising
deemphasizes or ignores academic learning and they instead offered the educational concept of
praxis as an appropriate way to think about academic advising.
Hemwall and Trachte (1999) were concerned developmental advising moved the focus
away from the curriculum and unnecessarily toward student development. Instead they pushed
for praxis – the idea that a person can understand and critique the beliefs, practices, norms, and
assumptions that provide meaning to his or her world. According to Hemwall and Trachte
(1999), “If academic advising can be considered a form of praxis, it can be reconnected with
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 27

liberal learning, the core of which includes the proposition that students should acquire a
capacity for critical reflection upon the world in which they live” (p. 116). They contended that
advising should focus on the main educational mission of the school along with the students’
individual experiences only to the extent those experiences inhibit or allow successful learning.
Around the same time, Lowenstein (1999) proposed a similar alternative to
developmental advising. He suggested the field move its focus away from personal growth and
toward academic learning. He called this approach academically centered advising and later
went on to describe it as a way of advancing the logic of the curriculum (Lowenstein, 2000).
Lowenstein explained that above and beyond the institution’s rationale for the general education
curriculum, students must create their own meaning out of the curriculum they follow. He
suggested advisors align themselves with academic affairs as opposed to student services and
become curriculum experts. Lowenstein (2005) reasoned that faculty should be the experts of
particular courses and advisors should be the experts of the overall curriculum, helping students
relate material from one course to others.
In response to the newly proposed academically centered advising orientation, the
assertions made within this literature regarding developmental advising, and the growing
popularity of developmental advising in general, Grites and Gordon (2000) revisited the
fundamental principles of developmental advising. They were worried Hemwall and Trachte
(1999) did not fully understand the foundational beliefs behind the theory. Their main concern
was the claim that developmental advising had lost sight of the central mission of higher
education and was too focused on personal development, to the point of excluding intellectual
development. According to the rebuttal, the authors argued the foundation of developmental
advising was never separated from academics. Prior to the field shifting from prescriptive to
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 28

developmental, the focus of advising was almost exclusively on academics. To emphasize the
difference between prescriptive and developmental, the early theorists emphasized the new,
holistic, personal development component. Vocational and academic decision-making was
mentioned but they focused their discussion on the new addition, attempting to integrate, not
separate, academic goals and personal development. Grites and Gordon (2000) found it ironic
that Hemwall and Trachte (1999) thought advising needed to be reconnected with liberal
learning because, they proposed, it was never disconnected. In summary, they wanted to make
clear that the goal of developmental academic advising is to facilitate student learning in all three
contexts (i.e. educational, career, and personal) identified by Winston and colleagues (1984).
One additional component that supports the argument Grites and Gordon put forth can be seen in
one of the founding articles. O’Banion (1972) does not abandon the curriculum in his
developmental advising discussion, in fact he states, “Academic advising is, of course, intricately
related to curriculum and instruction” (p. 14).
In addition to Grites and Gordon, another theorist wrote a series of articles explaining
how academically centered advising is woven into the developmental advising theory. In
reviewing prescriptive advising, Appleby (2001a) discussed its potential for success, but he also
suggested a major drawback of prescriptive advising is that it does not allow students to develop
a sense of responsibility for making their own academic choices. Within a prescriptive advising
framework students may never move beyond choosing courses simply to satisfy requirements on
a checklist. He goes on to discuss developmental advising as the framework advisors use to help
students understand learning objectives outlined by a department and the school’s rationale for
the curriculum requirements. This information helps students formulate specific reasons for
mastering the course materials. Making meaning of the course materials allows students to
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 29

develop transferrable skills that can be applied in numerous settings, creating human capital
(Appleby, 2001b). Appleby concluded by reminding readers of an underlying goal of
developmental advising, which he also argued is the purpose of higher education – to not only
help students increase their employability but to become well-rounded human beings (Appleby,
2001c). The author attempted to show how assisting students to create the logic of their
curriculum was a fundamental component of the developmental advising relationship.
The literature synthesis above has attempted to display a healthy debate in the academic
advising community. The contributing authors over the past four decades have helped to refine
and strengthen numerous ideas and retire unverified or outdated philosophies. The authors of
Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook offer their predictions on the direction of the
field with this statement:
It is reasonable to expect to see major works that build upon the groundwork laid by
Hemwall, Trachte, Lowenstein, and others. At the same time, it is reasonable to expect
that developmental theory will continue to engage and inform practice and research in
academic advising for many years to come. (Gordon et al., 2008, p. 32)
Although, additional theories of advising (e.g. intrusive, student-centered, appreciative) have
emerged, none have come close to garnering the amount of attention developmental advising has
received.
Advising underrepresented students. Most of the academic advising relationship
research above was conducted using primarily white, middle class participants. Eventually
researchers began to test the utility of relationship styles with underrepresented students. Studies
conducted with racially and ethnically diverse participants will be reviewed below, followed by
an overview of advising relationship research and the international student population.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 30

Racially and ethnically diverse students and the advising relationship. As the research
conducted on traditional students started to demonstrate, developmental and prescriptive
advising need not be viewed as an either/or choice. Scholars attempting to understand diverse
groups supported the utility of both. The increasing diversity in the college population made
developmental advising an important theoretical framework because it supported students’
individual differences and lead to overall student satisfaction and retention (Coll, 2008).
However, Brown and Rivas (1994) proposed early developmental theorists were too tough on the
prescriptive style. They offered four reasons why prescriptive advising may be appropriate for
minority students: (1) Students may be from a culture that emphasizes hierarchical patterns of
interaction, making a nondirective approach stressful and confusing for students. (2) A caring
and trusting relationship is important but advisors may need to take the lead in its formation.
This could require direction and prescriptive techniques from the advisor in order to commence.
(3) Socialization experiences may have made minority students mistrust bureaucratic agents (e.g.
advisors) and advisors may need to take the lead early on, using the prescriptive style, to move
the relationship on to more complex interactions, and (4) Expertness may need to be exhibited
before a student is willing to build an ongoing relationship with an advisor. In conclusion, the
authors explained that prescriptive strategies used in the context of developmental advising with
minority students demonstrated care and compassion, which can lead to a greater satisfaction
with advising.
Additional scholars have pushed for the need for students to feel cared for and argued
that developmental advising could be used to achieve this goal. Heisserer and Parette (2002)
suggested prescriptive advising is necessary, but more importantly, students need to feel valued
and cared for by the university and an advisor following a developmental approach can achieve
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 31

this objective. The same sentiment was echoed by Drake (2011) who argued that above all,
advising should be about the relationship between the advisor and advisee and their rapport
should make the student feel cared for and enhance his or her connection to the institution.
Furthermore, scholars have proposed that advising grounded in developmental theory is
necessary due to the increasing diversity in the student body. They contend that developmental
theory allows the flexibility needed to work effectively with diverse students (Jeschke, Johnson,
& Williams, 2001).
Researchers have similarly contended that a one-size-fits-all model of advising is not
appropriate. A research group reviewed academic advising literature and identified 12 functions
of advising that were commonly discussed. They found that ethnicity significantly predicted the
importance ratings of 9 of the 12 functions and ethnic minority groups rated the functions
differently than white students. They conclude by explaining students value both prescriptive
and developmental advising but what matters the most is that students receive good advising on
the functions they consider the most important. Seeing that not all students prescribed the same
rating, the authors proposed advisors need to be flexible in their approach and tailor their
sessions to meet individual needs (Smith & Allen, 2006). One lens cannot be used to view the
experiences and skills of all students. Developmental advising allows for unique interactions
between student and advisor, tailored to the individual student’s needs. Additionally,
developmental advising is linked to the educational mission of the university allowing advisors
to advance the teaching and learning mission of higher education (Association of American
Colleges and Universities, 2006; Campbell & Nutt, 2008).
International students and the advising relationship. The academic advising literature
on racially and ethnically diverse groups provides a useful foundation for understanding the
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 32

international student population, as many of them will identify with a racial or ethnic minority
status upon arriving in the United States. In addition to unique challenges minority students face
in predominately white institutions, international students must navigate an additional layer of
complexity that is associated with moving to a new country. Advisors can help create a positive
environment for students and may be their only consistent connection to the university that can
help them make sense of their educational process. Fortunately, international students see
academic advising as a very important service (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986; Charles & Stewart,
1991). Literature has shown that international students appreciate developmental advising
strategies and they appreciate advisors who help them apply their learning. Additionally, they
value advisors who take the time to become familiar with their culture and academic background
and, in general, are knowledgeable about educational systems in other countries (Cadieux &
Wehrly, 1986). Advisors working from a developmental framework embrace these tasks and
view them as essential to quality advising.
Similar to the literature on domestic student advising, it has become apparent that
international students appreciate prescriptive advising interactions as well. This may be
especially true for international students because they tend to expect a more formal relationship
with their academic advisor. A completely developmental approach may seem too relaxed and
informal to them, as they may desire concrete answers and firm direction (Charles & Stewart,
1991). They may seek hierarchical relationships in their new educational system due to
discomfort that arises with mutuality, and therefore a prescriptive approach, at least in the
beginning, may be well-received (Goto, 1999).
A study comparing international and domestic student educational engagement outlined
advising strategies that could be employed to bolster the success of international students. The
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 33

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) yielded responses from 2,780 international
students, out of a pool of 71,260 total student responses (Zhao et al., 2005). Researchers found
that international students were more engaged than domestic students in their first year.
International students reported engaging in more student-faculty interaction and educationally
purposeful activities than domestic students. This gap diminished by their senior year when
there was little difference in student engagement between the two groups. Exceptions included
American students’ greater involvement in community services and international students’ larger
gains in personal and social development as well as general education progress. Examining
individual differences highlighted the need for advisors to build relationships with their advisees
and to do so they needed to understand and appreciate each student’s unique traits, values, and
circumstances. Nevertheless, this study pointed out the similarities in the two groups,
recognizing that international students could benefit from much of the empirically-supported
advising theory developed using primarily domestic participants.
Conflicting results and a lack of research involving the international student population
indicate a need for more research surrounding the advising relationship and its connection to
advising satisfaction and sense of belonging. The type of relationship international students
build with their advisors may impact their persistence, and further investigation is warranted,
with the goal of improving international student advising. The present study will use the popular
Academic Advising Inventory to evaluate international students’ perceptions of their advising
relationships.
Advisor-Advisee Activities
In addition to the advising relationship, the advisor-advisee activities have received
attention in higher education literature. Although researchers agree on their importance, advising
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 34

activities have received less attention in the literature than the advising relationship. The section
below will focus on advisor-advisee activities while also describing overlap between the two
variables, as they are inextricably linked. To begin, an overview of advisor-advisee activities
will be presented followed by empirical results of advising activities-related research. The
activities discussion will conclude by suggesting additional advising topics that should be studied
based on the unique characteristics, described above, of international students.
Although O’Banion’s articles focused primarily on the advising relationship, it would be
hard to discuss the style of advising without touching upon what would be discussed within the
context of the developing relationship. He pointed out five dimensions he believed academic
advising should include: (1) exploration of life goals, (2) exploration of vocational goals, (3)
program choice, (4) course choice, and (5) scheduling courses (O’Banion, 1994).
Other researchers suggested similar topics. The Academic Advising Inventory,
mentioned above, included a section examining the advising relationship and another examining
the advising activities. The AAI broke the content into five categories: (1) exploring institutional
policies, (2) providing information, (3) personal development and interpersonal relationships, (4)
registration and class scheduling, and (5) teaching personal skills (Winston & Sandor, 2002).
Not everyone agrees on the activities that should be covered. From the discussion
surrounding the advising relationship, it can be gathered that Lowenstein would place great
emphasis on discussing coursework and the curriculum and would not find academic advising
the appropriate place for students to learn personal skills, focus on personal development or
interpersonal relationships (Lowenstein, 1999). Similarly, Braxton & McClendon (2002)
focused specifically on course selection in their suggestions for academic advising activities.
They argued that advisors should encourage their advisees to consider teaching practices of the
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 35

faculty when selecting courses. More specifically, they should seek out faculty who facilitate
class discussion, encourage higher order thinking, and have received favorable course
evaluations. They proposed that students who reflected upon faculty teaching practices prior to
selecting courses were more likely to persist to graduation.
Activities preferred by students. Studies conducted with the college student population
help to clarify what activities may be important for advisors to include in their sessions. The
authors of the AAI found that the frequency of advising activities was positively correlated with
advising satisfaction (Winston & Sandor, 2002). Similarly, a study that administered the AAI,
thereby gathering data on the five activity categories, found that advising satisfaction positively
correlated with the frequency for all five types of activities (Alexitch, 1997). Furthermore, this
study revealed that the more grade-oriented (as opposed to learning-oriented) students were the
more interested they were in the activities of the advising session rather than the advisor-advisee
relationship. Additionally, the researcher asked students about their preferred frequencies for the
five categories and found that students’ preferred frequencies were significantly higher than the
actual frequencies of the advising activities. Finally, the same study confirmed that the frequency
of activities positively correlated with the amount of time spent with the advisor.
Another study examining advising activities preference among 388 minority students at
five predominately white institutions asked them to indicate whether they were comfortable
approaching their academic advisor to discuss six different topics. The activities, from those
rated most comfortable to least comfortable, were: (1) to sign my registration or other forms
(77%), (2) concerning my academic questions or problems (69%), (3) for career planning (60%),
(4) to write my letters of recommendations (54%), (5) for personal counseling (46%), and (6) for
decision making (46%) (Burrell & Trombley, 1983).
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 36

A third study examined 12 advising functions that operationalized five constructs and
asked students to rate their importance and indicate their satisfaction with each. The five
constructs were: (1) integration (function examples: advising that helps students connect their
academic, career, and life goals; advising that assists students with choosing out-of-class
activities, e.g., part-time employment, internships, participation in clubs or organizations, that
connect their academic, career, and life goals), (2) referrals (function examples: when students
need it, referral to campus resources that address academic problems; when students need it,
referral to campus resources that address nonacademic problems), (3) information (function
examples: assisting students with understanding how things work at this university – timelines,
policies, registration, financial aid, grading, graduation, petitions, and appeals; ability to give
students accurate information about degree requirements), (4) individuation (function examples:
taking into account students’ skills, abilities, and interests in helping them choose courses;
knowing the student as an individual), and (5) shared responsibility (functional example:
encouraging students to assume responsibility for their education by helping them develop
planning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills) (Smith & Allen, 2006). Results
indicated that students ranked accurate information as their top priority but even the lowest
ranked item was still rated as important. The researchers included an ethnicity variable and
found that student ethnicity significantly predicted importance rating of 9 of the 12 functions. In
general, Asian American, African American, and students reporting multiple ethnicities most
often rated the functions differently than white students, displaying yet again that understanding
individual differences in advising is important.
The advising activities suggested by scholars and reported desirable by students cover a
wide variety of topics. Theorists and students agree on many items, yet complete consensus is
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 37

lacking. Additionally, much of the advising research that examined advising session content did
not fully incorporate the activities that literature indicates would be ideal for working with
international students. The following section will describe what scholars have indicated are
important advising topics that should be addressed with international students. In doing so
advisors can facilitate impactful advising sessions, leading to increased student satisfaction and
ultimately retention.
Activities for international students. As indicated in the Background of the Study
section above, international students face unique challenges. If advisors would like to improve
advising satisfaction and increase international student sense of belonging and retention they
must be mindful of their unique needs when interacting with these students. Theorists have
recommended that advisors become familiar with international students’ cultures and academic
backgrounds (Hood & Schieffer, 1984). Others have strengthened the suggestion, arguing that
advisors should have a comprehensive understanding of their advisees’ cultural backgrounds
(Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992; Sue & Sue, 1990). Scholars have recommended that for
advisors’ work to be appreciated by advisees they must be culturally sensitive, and to do so they
must ask questions to learn about the individual (Charles & Stewart, 1991). To further enhance
the experience, advisors should not only learn about the advisees’ cultural and academic
backgrounds, they should also acknowledge potential cultural differences (Cornett-DeVito &
Reeves, 1999).
In an attempt to summarize the literature outlining how to best work with international
students, the authors of Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook gave specific
recommendations. In its chapter entitled “Advising Students of Color and International Students”
the authors listed seven strategies for working with these students: (1) advise the whole student,
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 38

(2) understand the student’s family background, (3) provide mentorship, (4) build trust to make
personal meaning, (5) understand identity, (6) develop multicultural competencies, and (7) be in
the student’s world. Several of the strategies can be evaluated through advising activities
questioning.
Several scholars have pointed out the need for advisors to discuss additional, distinctive
topics to better understand how to best assist international students. The foundational advising
literature provides advisors with a solid base from which to work, however, more research is
needed to test the suggestions presented in the theoretical discussion regarding international
student needs. For example, like most measurement tools related to academic advising, the
Academic Advising Inventory does not directly include questioning about topics that have been
suggested to be important for increasing international student advising satisfaction. The AAI,
which is the most widely used instrument to investigate advising (Daller et al., 1997), could
benefit from supplemental questions that drill down into the needs of this unique population.
The literature leading up to the present study left the connection between advising
activities and advising satisfaction and sense of belonging unclear, especially among the
international student population. The present study will use the AAI along with newly
developed, theoretically-based questions to examine this connection.
Country of Citizenship
International students from the same regions or countries may face similar challenges
adjusting to the educational system in the United States. The college experience is interpreted
differently by students depending on their country of origin and home culture (Zhao et al., 2005).
Studies have found similarities based on international student country of origin regarding
help-seeking behaviors (Dadfar & Friedlander, 1982; Oliver, Reed, Katz, & Haugh, 1999). One
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 39

study surveyed students from 75 countries and found that European and Latin American
international students held more positive perceptions toward seeking professional psychological
assistance than did African and Asian students (Dadfar & Friedlander, 1982).
Another research group reviewed data from 248 undergraduates at a private, midsized,
Midwestern university and also confirmed between-group differences in mental health help-
seeking behaviors (Oliver et al., 1999). Furthermore, between-group differences can be seen as
international students adjust to a new educational environment. Stress generated by language
limitations and interactions with authority figures can be predicted based on country of origin
among international students (Charles & Stewart, 1991). For example, students who grew up in
a country where their first language was English or are from an individualistic society, similar to
the United States, face less of a challenge adjusting to these two factors than students’ who are
non-native English speakers or from collectivistic societies.
Moreover, sociocultural stressors such as racial discrimination and prejudice are
encountered at different rates depending on race, which often correlates with students’ home
countries (Chen, 1999). Additionally, when international student data was disaggregated by
ethnic group, researchers found that certain groups struggled more than others when it came to
different topics. For example, Asian international students had the most difficulty when it came
to learning a new language and making new friends. European students reported being apart
from family and friends was their greatest stressor, and more specifically, southern Europeans
indicated they were the most homesick (Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008).
Understanding general trends among international students from particular countries can
aid advisors in the work they do. Advisors who familiarize themselves with common cultural
values, religions, political systems, and customs show international students it is worth their time
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 40

to improve their cultural competencies and learn about their backgrounds. As researchers have
indicated, learning about students’ backgrounds position advisors to better assist students in
adjusting to a new academic environment (Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986). This understanding will
hopefully lead to international students’ increased satisfaction with advising and sense of
belonging to campus.
Acculturation
Although learning about cultural trends and students’ countries of citizenship can
enhance advising quality, advisors must be careful not to make broad generalizations about their
students based on their home countries. In addition to between-group differences, variation
within cultural groups should be examined. One of the most important measures of this variation
is acculturation (Zane & Mak, 2003).
Acculturation has been defined as multidimensional change in cultural values and
behaviors that results from continuous contact between two distinct cultural groups (Berry, 1997,
2003; Stephenson, 2000). The orthogonal model of acculturation was developed to modify an
earlier bipolar model that suggested acceptance of one culture must come at the expense of the
other (Oetting & Beauvais, 1991). Instead, it was proposed that a person could embrace both
cultures and doing so was seen as an asset. The orthogonal model is made up of the bipolar
model along two dimensions – the value of maintaining one’s identity and characteristics and the
value of maintaining one’s relationship with the larger society, and also includes two
components – attitudes and behaviors. Berry (1992) defined four acculturation strategies in the
orthogonal model: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization. Assimilation
involves abandoning one’s home cultural identity and adopting the new culture. Integration
refers to those individuals who retain their cultural identity while at the same time join the larger
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 41

societal framework. Separation occurs when individuals maintain their ethnic identity and
traditions and do not absorb the culture of the dominant society. Finally, marginalization
happens when one loses a cultural and psychological connection with the dominant society and
the traditional culture (Berry, 1997).
Research conducted supports the existence of these four distinct clusters and also found
that the integration group was the largest of the four strategies (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder,
2006). Acculturation can occur at the group or individual level. Group level changes include
physical, biological, political, economical and cultural, whereas individual changes are
psychological and can lead to behavioral shifts. Behavioral shifts occur when one’s values,
attitudes, abilities, and/or motives change due to the acculturation process (Berry, 1992).
Research has suggested there are large group and individual differences in acculturation.
The amount of stress experienced and how well individuals psychologically and socioculturally
adapt varies. In general, those pursuing integration strategies experience the least amount of
stress and adapt better than the other three groups. Furthermore, individuals taking a
marginalization approach have the hardest time, while those assimilating or separating
experience intermediate amounts of stress and adaption (Berry, 2005).
Researchers took Berry’s work and applied the findings to academic advising. They
suggested students may experience cultural mistrust, if victimized by acts of prejudice and
racism, as they adjust to a new culture (Schlosser, Talleyrand, Lyons, Kim, & Johnson, 2011). It
is important for advisors to consider students’ acculturation strategies. Advisors may need to
play a stronger role in helping marginalized students and those experiencing cultural mistrust as
they navigate the demands of a new educational environment (Schlosser et al., 2011).
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 42

Many measurement tools have been developed to evaluate acculturation. They are
typically self-report surveys that assess behaviors and attitudes related to acculturation. Most
often they are designed to examine acculturation in one particular ethnic group, such as Asian
American or Mexican American. Researchers conducted a content analysis of 21 popular
acculturation scales to evaluate the content validity of the inventories (Zane & Mak, 2003).
They found that the majority of the tools used a bipolar model, where acculturation was
measured along only one continuum, pinning the home culture against the dominant culture. The
few that did not use the bipolar approach measured acculturation of the home and the dominant
cultures separately. The researchers identified 10 content categories evaluated in the 21 tools.
The most popular categories measured were language use/preference, daily living habits, social
affiliations, and cultural identity/pride. The article concluded by emphasizing the importance of
communication style, suggesting helping professionals need to be especially aware of this
variable as it tends to change with acculturation. This change may affect important interpersonal
processes between the advisor and the advisee.
One of the few acculturation tools developed to utilize a multidimensional review of
acculturation was the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). A linear (i.e.
bipolar) model ignores the possibility that individuals may preserve various elements of their
home culture while simultaneously connecting with the dominant society. To move away from
this bipolar model, the SMAS was designed to examine both dimensions independently.
Additionally, the SMAS incorporated questions related to the top four content areas found in the
measurement analysis conducted by Zane and Mak (2003), demonstrating peer consensus, which
strengthens its validity. In addition to language use/preference, daily living habits, social
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 43

affiliations, and cultural identity/pride, the SMAS also included questions on cultural traditions
and perceived prejudice/discrimination.
The SMAS was not designed for use with one specific cultural group and was instead
developed to be used by multiple groups. The author acknowledged that “it is indisputable that
diverse groups will have differing experiences rooted in their respective cultures; however, it is
also likely that there will be common experiences across acculturating groups” (Stephenson,
2000, p. 78). The present study will use the SMAS to evaluate the acculturation of international
students because of its multidimensional design, content validity, and versatility in measuring
across ethnic groups.
Summary of Literature Review
An overview of the literature related to the independent variables (i.e. advising
relationship, advisor-advisee activities, country of origin, and acculturation) was provided above.
The nature of the relationship between advisor and advisee in a college setting has been a central
theme in the academic advising literature over the past four decades. The tension between
developmental and prescriptive advising has been the primary focus in the advising relationship
discourse. Students tend to value developmental advising over prescriptive but research has
shown that students find both important (Alextich 1997, 2002; Crockett & Crawford, 1989;
Fielstein. Scoles, & Webb, 1992; Brown & Rivas, 1994). Scholars suggest one does not
necessarily need to come at the cost of the other, but instead advisors should incorporate both,
depending on the subject matter (e.g. academic policies, career planning) and specific student
characteristics (e.g. gender, ethnicity, year in school, help-seeking behaviors). More specifically,
research has shown that international students appreciate both developmental and prescriptive
academic advising (Charles & Stewart, 1991; Goto, 1999).
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 44

The second independent variable discussed, advisor-advisee activities, has been broken
into dimensions such as course selection, exploring life and vocational goals, program choice,
personal development and interpersonal relationships, providing information and personal skills
(O’Banion, 1994; Winston & Sandor, 2002; Lowenstein, 1999; Braxton & McClendon, 2002).
Not all scholars are in agreement on what topics should be covered by advisors and the level of
importance placed on each; however, it does appear that the frequency of advising activities in
general, positively correlates with students’ satisfaction with advising (Alexich, 1997).
Additionally, students say they desire a higher frequency of advising activities than they actually
receive. Specifically for international students, theorists suggest advisors should facilitate
activities that allow them to (1) advise the whole student, (2) understand the student’s family
background, (3) provide mentorship, (4) build trust to make personal meaning, (5) understand
identity, (6) develop multicultural competencies, and (7) be in the student’s world (Gordon,
Habley, Grites & Associates, 2008).
Country of citizenship was the third independent variable addressed. International
students from the same regions or countries may face similar challenges adjusting to the
educational system in the United States. The college experience is interpreted differently by
students depending on their country of origin and home culture (Zhao et al., 2005). Research has
shown trends by country of citizenship in help-seeking behaviors, language difficulties,
interactions with authority figures, racial discrimination, development of new friendships, and
homesickness (Dadfar & Friedlander, 1982; Oliver et al., 1999; Charles & Stewart, 1991; Chen,
1999; Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008).
The final independent variable covered above was acculturation. Whereas country of
citizenship compares between-group differences, acculturation examines within-group variance.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 45

The orthogonal model of acculturation is made up of the bipolar model along two dimensions –
the value of maintaining one’s identity and characteristics and the value of maintaining one’s
relationship with the larger society, and also includes two components – attitudes and behaviors.
This model leads to the four acculturation strategies of assimilation, integration, separation, and
marginalization (Berry, 1992). Research has suggested there are large group and individual
differences in acculturation. Typically, those pursuing integration strategies experience the least
amount of stress and adapt better than the other three groups. Additionally, individuals taking a
marginalization approach have the hardest time, while those assimilating or separating
experience intermediate amounts of stress and adaption (Berry, 2005).
The four primary independent variables: advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities,
country of origin, and acculturation, will be examined to determine if they are predictors of
international students’ satisfaction with academic advising, sense of belonging to campus, and
intent to persist to graduation. Satisfaction with academic advising and sense of belonging will
serve as dependent variables, but additionally, they will both act as independent variables in a
corresponding analysis to determine if they predict intent to persist.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 46

Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in the current literature on international student
academic advising by exploring institutional and cultural factors that may predict satisfaction
with academic advising, sense of belonging, and intent to persist among undergraduate
international students. Additionally, the study will investigate an alternative to Tinto’s college
student departure theory by examining the relationship between sense of belonging and intent to
persist in international college students.
Research questions. The following questions and hypotheses will be addressed in this
study:
Research Question 1:
Are there ethnic group differences by countries of origin in advising satisfaction among
international college students?
Hypothesis 1: There will be country of citizenship group differences in
advising satisfaction.
Research Question 2:
Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, and acculturation predict advising
satisfaction among international college students?
Hypothesis 2a: A developmental advising relationship will predict higher levels of
advising satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2b: A higher frequency of advisor-advisee activities will predict
higher levels of advising satisfaction.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 47

Research Question 3:
Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, and advising
satisfaction predict sense of belonging to campus among international college students?
Hypothesis 3a: A developmental advising relationship will predict higher levels of
sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 3b: A higher frequency of advisor-advisee activities will predict
higher levels of sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 3c: Greater satisfaction with academic advising will predict a greater
sense of belonging.
Research Question 4:
Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, advising satisfaction,
and sense of belonging predict intent to persist to graduation among international college
students?
Hypothesis 4a: A developmental advising relationship will predict higher levels of
intent to persist.
Hypothesis 4b: A higher frequency of advisor-advisee activities will predict
higher levels of intent to persist.
Hypothesis 4c: Greater satisfaction with academic advising will predict a greater
intent to persist.
Hypothesis 4d: Greater sense of belonging will predict a greater intent to persist.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 48

CHAPTER III: Methodology
This study investigated the influence of the academic advising relationship and activities,
acculturation, and country of citizenship on advising satisfaction as well as the influence of
advising satisfaction on sense of belonging among U.S. undergraduate international students.
Additionally, it explored the relationship between the advising relationship, advisor-advisee
activities, acculturation, advising satisfaction, and sense of belonging on intent to persist to
graduation among international college students. The following chapter includes information on
the participants, survey instruments used, procedures for data collection, and the analytic
strategies employed.
Participants
International undergraduate students were recruited from a large, private, West Coast,
research university during a one-month period in the fall semester of 2012. A total of 467
students volunteered and participated. Of those participants, 322 completed the survey. An
independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the age of complete and incomplete
responses. There was no significant difference found. Additionally, Chi-square tests for
independence indicated no significant difference between complete and incomplete responses
when it came to gender, entry status (i.e. freshman or transfer), geographic region of country of
origin, and parents’ annual income. An additional 21 survey responses were omitted because the
participants reported being graduate students. A total of 301 undergraduate student survey
responses were used in the final data analysis. Participants in the sample ranged in age from 17
to 33 years old (M = 20.51 years, SD = 2.13). As shown in Table 1, the sample was comprised
of 57.5% (n = 173) female students and 42.4% (n = 128) male students.
! !
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 49

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Student Participants
N Percentage
Gender
Female 173 57.5
Male 128 42.4

Age
17-20 166 55.2
21-24 124 41.2
25-28 8 2.6
29-33 3 1.0

Year in School
Freshman (0-32 units) 61 20.3
Sophomore (33-64 units) 82 27.2
Junior (65-96 units) 78 25.9
Senior (97+ units) 80 26.6

Entry Status
Freshman 204 67.8
Transfer 93 30.9

Living in U.S.
< 1 year 61 20.3
1-2 years 74 24.6
2-3 years 59 19.6
3-4 years 55 18.3
4+ years 51 16.9

Studying Current Degree
< 1 year 75 24.9
1-2 years 80 26.6
2-3 years 68 22.6
3-4 years 56 18.6
4+ years 19 6.3

Cumulative GPA
1.0-1.99 1 0.3
2.0-2.99 29 9.6
3.0-3.5 91 30.2
3.51-4.0 100 33.2
Do not have one yet 80 26.6
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 50

Participants reported 40 countries of citizenship, with the top seven countries, China (n =
92, 30.6%), South Korea (n = 24, 8%), Canada (n = 20, 6.6%), India (n = 19, 6.3%), Hong Kong
(n = 17, 5.6%), Malaysia (n = 17, 5.6%), and Taiwan (n = 17, 5.6%), making up 68.3% of the
total respondents. The complete country of citizenship frequency distribution of the sample is
presented in Table 2. As a point of comparison, the top seven countries of citizenship for the
entire undergraduate international student population at the institution were as follows: China
(29.1%), South Korea (14.5%), Canada (8.3%), Indonesia (6.2%), India (5.2%), Hong Kong
(5.1%), and Taiwan (4%).
Participants’ reported time living in the United States ranged from one month to 15 years,
with an average of 29.35 months (SD = 25.55). They also reported how long they have been
studying for their current degree, which ranged from one month to 13 years, with an average of
22.48 months (SD = 18.14). Students’ academic class, entry status (i.e. freshman or transfer), as
well as their self-reported GPAs are also presented in Table 1.
When asked about their annual family income, 13 participants (4.3%) indicated a
household income of under $25,000, 22 participants (7.3%) indicated between $25,001-$50,000,
64 participants (21.3%) indicated between $50,001-$75,000, 63 participants (20.9%) indicated
between $75,001-$100,000, 70 participants (23.6%) indicated between $100,001-$150,000, and
60 participants (19.9%) reported an annual family income of over $150,000. Similarly,
participants were also asked to describe their socioeconomic status (SES) of their families. The
most frequently reported class was upper middle class (n = 149, 49.5%), followed by middle
class (n = 112, 37.2%). Complete income and SES frequency information is reported in Table 3.
Comparing self-reported income and class across cultures should be done with caution, as
undergraduates may not have accurate knowledge of their parents’ financial situation.! !
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 51

Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Country of Citizenship
N Percentage
China 92 30.6
South Korea 24 8.0
Canada 20 6.6
India 19 6.3
Hong Kong 17 5.6
Malaysia 17 5.6
Taiwan 17 5.6
Indonesia 16 5.3
Singapore 14 4.7
Mexico 8 2.7
Japan 7 2.3
Brazil 5 1.7
United Kingdom 5 1.7
Australia 3 1.0
Philippines 3 1.0
Thailand 3 1.0
Turkey 3 1.0
Columbia 2 0.7
Costa Rica 2 0.7
Kazakhstan 2 0.7
Vietnam 2 0.7
Cambodia 1 0.3
Chile 1 0.3
France 1 0.3
Germany 1 0.3
Greece 1 0.3
Hungary 1 0.3
Iraq 1 0.3
Kenya 1 0.3
Kuwait 1 0.3
The Netherlands 1 0.3
New Zealand 1 0.3
Norway 1 0.3
Pakistan 1 0.3
Panama 1 0.3
Portugal 1 0.3
Russia 1 0.3
South Africa 1 0.3
Sri Lanka 1 0.3
Venezuela 1 0.3

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 52

Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Student Class and Income
N Percentage
Socioeconomic Status
Working Class 2 0.7
Lower Middle Class 6 2.0
Middle Class 112 37.2
Upper Middle Class 149 49.5
Upper Class 26 8.6

Family Income
Under $25,000 13 4.3
$25,001-50,000 22 7.3
$50,001-75,000 64 21.3
$75,001-100,000 63 20.9
$100,001-150,000 71 23.6
Over $150,000 60 19.9

As shown in Table 4, students reported a broad range of parental education. The majority
of students indicated both their fathers (n = 223, 74.1%), and mothers (n = 190, 63.1%) had a
college degree (or more).
Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Parental Education
Father Mother
Parental Education N Percentage N Percentage

Elementary 2 0.7 1 0.3
Junior High 7 2.3 5 1.7
High School 28 9.3 50 16.6
Some College 32 10.6 47 15.6
Bachelor’s 120 39.9 126 41.9
Master’s 69 22.9 47 15.6
Advanced Degree (such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.) 34 11.3 17 5.6
Do Not Know 5 1.7 6 2.0

The most frequently cited primary school of study was Business/Accounting (n = 111,
36.9%), followed by Letters, Arts, & Sciences (n = 85, 28.2%) and Engineering (n = 60, 19.9%).
The breakdown of school (i.e. college) of study of the sample is presented in Table 5 below. The
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 53

most common primary school of study for the entire undergraduate international student
population at the institution was Business/Accounting (39.3%), followed by Letters, Arts, &
Sciences (29.3%) and Engineering (15.4%).
Table 5
Frequency Distribution of Primary School of Study
N Percentage
Primary School of Study
Letters, Arts, & Sciences 85 28.2
Business 81 26.9
Engineering 60 19.9
Accounting 30 10.0
Communication/Journalism 19 6.3
Architecture 7 2.3
Theatre 5 1.7
Public Policy 4 1.3
Cinematic Arts 3 1.0
Fine Arts 2 0.7
Music 2 0.7
Medicine 1 0.3
Other 2 0.7

Instruments
Prior to receiving the survey, all participants were provided with a consent form and were
notified that all responses would remain confidential (Appendix A). The survey was divided into
five sections: 1) demographic and background information (Appendix B), 2) Academic Advising
Inventory, including supplemental questions (Appendices C and D), 3) Stephenson Multigroup
Acculturation Scale (Appendix E), 4) Sense of Belonging to Campus (Appendix F), and Intent to
Persist (Appendix G). Information on the specific instruments used for each of the sections is
described below.
Academic Advising Inventory. The Academic Advising Inventory (AAI) was designed
to measure three aspects of college student advising: 1) the advising relationship along the
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 54

developmental-prescriptive continuum, 2) the activities during an advising session and their
frequency, and 3) advising satisfaction. Aspects one and two were used to measure the
corresponding independent variables in the present study and aspect three, advising satisfaction,
was identified as a dependent variable in Research Questions 1 and 2 and an independent
variable in Research Questions 3 and 4. The AAI was developed by Winston and Sandor (1984)
(see Appendix C) and is provided to researchers by Student Development Associates, Inc.
through the National Academic Advising Association.
The 57-item inventory has four parts. Part one examines how students perceive their
advising relationship, which is represented by two behavioral styles and attitudes – prescriptive
and developmental. The second section explores the advisor-advisee activities. Part three seeks
to measure students’ satisfaction with advising and the fourth part is a demographic
questionnaire. This study will use parts one and two as written. Part three will be used in its
entirety and will also include supplemental advising satisfaction questions. Several items from
part four, the demographic section, will be extracted and used at the beginning of the survey
along with additional demographic questions. Finally, supplemental questions will be added at
the end of the AAI and will be described below.
AAI part one: Advising relationship. Part one, which examines the nature of the
advising relationship, contains questions that are designed to assess the extent students report
receiving prescriptive or developmentally based advising in their current situations. The section
contains 14 items and within each item students are given a pair of advisor behaviors, one
prescriptive in nature and the other developmental. They are asked to choose which they prefer.
Each behavior is rated using a four-point Likert-type scale for a total of an eight-point scale for
each item. For example, “My advisor suggests what I should major in” has a response range of
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 55

A, B, C, and D with A representing “very true” and D representing “slightly true.” The
corresponding statement “My advisor suggests steps I can take to help me decide on a major” has
a response range of E, F, G, and H with E defined as “slightly true and H as “very true.”
Students must choose one letter between A and H to indicate their preference and the strength of
that preference for one of the two statements.
Part one contains three subscales: Personalizing Education, Academic Decision Making,
and Selecting Courses. Personalizing Education (PE) contains eight items and addresses both
academic and personal interests and concerns of the student such as career planning,
extracurricular activities, goal setting, identification of campus resources, and personal interests.
The PE subscale scoring range is 8-64, where scores of 33-64 indicate “developmental advising”
and scores of 8-32 represent “prescriptive advising.” The second subscale, Academic Decision-
Making (ADM), is made up of four items that address monitoring academic progress and
gathering information and assessing the student’s abilities and interests related to academic
subjects. Scores ranging from 17-32 indicate “developmental advising” while scores from 4-16
represent “prescriptive advising.” Selecting Courses (SC) is the third sub scale. There are two
questions. The first asks about specific course needs and the second addresses planning an
appropriate schedule. A high score (9-16) represents “developmental advising” and a low score
(2-8) is indicative of “prescriptive advising.”
AAI part two: Advisor-advisee activities. Part two of the AAI addresses advising
activities over the past year. It contains 30 items that start with the sentence, “How frequently
have you and your advisor spent time…” Participants are asked to respond using a six-point
Likert-type scale where A=None, B=1 time, C=2 times, D=3 times, E=4 times, and F=5 or more
times. Section two contains five subscales: Personal Development and Interpersonal
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 56

Relationships (12 items), Exploring Institutional Policies (5 items), Registration and Class
Scheduling (4 items), Teaching Personal Skills (3 items), and Academic Majors and Courses (6
items).
AAI part three: Satisfaction with advising. The third part of the AAI assesses students’
satisfaction with advising. It consists of five questions with a four-point Likert-type scale rating.
Potential responses include Strongly Disagree (A), Disagree (B), Agree (C), and Strongly Agree
(D). For the present study, the scale will be changed from a four-point to a six-point rating scale
to match the format of questions 7-17 in the supplemental advising section described below.
AAI reliability and validity. Reliability and validity of the AAI have been examined.
Internal consistency for part one (i.e. developmental-prescriptive scale) was determined using
scores from 476 participants where the coefficient alpha was .78 (Winston & Sandor, 2002).
Subscale coefficients were .66 for Academic Decision-Making, and .81 for Personalizing
Education. The coefficient alpha for the Selecting Courses subscale was quite low, as the scale
only contained two items, so the subscale was not used in the present study. Part two was not
designed to have psychometrically unitary scales. In part three, the five satisfaction questions
were designed to measure different aspects of advising satisfaction. Their intercorrelations were
reported and ranged from .37-.67. Additionally, the more developmental the students perceived
the advising relationship to be, the higher the level of overall satisfaction (item 45) they reported.
In the current study, Cronbach alpha coefficients for the Academic Decision-Making and the
Personalizing Education subscales of Part one (i.e. advising relationship) were both .72. The
coefficient alpha was .91 for the advising satisfaction scale.
Validity support came from two sources. One was the comparison of responses of
students in a relatively intensive, developmentally based advising program to students who
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 57

received advising through the standard advising office. The study found statistically significant
differences on the Developmental-Prescriptive Advising Scale and the Personalizing Education
Scale but not on the other scales. The other validity source is an examination of the correlational
relationships between the advising subscales and the activity scales. Except for the subscale
dealing with selecting courses, the advising subscales correlated moderately (range .16 to .60,
median .35) with the activity scales (Winston & Sandor, 2002). The AAI was chosen for this
study because it was developed specifically for the undergraduate student population, is the most
widely used advising inventory, and is theoretically-based. Additionally, the AAI received a
positive review in the Mental Measurements Yearbook. The reviewer explains that the AAI
provides a useful core for evaluating academic advising programs across institutions and the AAI
authors “have made an excellent start” (Brown, 1989, p. 1).
AAI: Supplemental international student questions. The authors of the AAI mention an
optional fifth part of the survey that allows researchers to develop their own questions related to
academic advising to add at the end of the instrument (Winston & Sandor, 2002). A fifth section
of the AAI was developed for the present study and included supplemental questions related to
advisor-advisee activities and satisfaction with advising (Appendix D). Advisor-advisee
activities items were developed to include questions written specifically for international
students as well as questions developed to complement part two items and provide a more
holistic overview of advising activities. Like most measurement tools related to academic
advising, the AAI does not directly include questions about topics that have been suggested to be
important for increasing international student advising satisfaction. This study included
supplemental, advisor-advisee activity items assessing the following: whether or not the pair
discussed the student’s home country, family, cultural differences, and the advisor’s advising
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 58

philosophy. More generally, students were asked about the type and frequency of contact they
have with their advisors. Finally, students were asked supplemental advising satisfaction-related
questions.
Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale. The Stephenson Multigroup
Acculturation Scale (SMAS) is a 32-item survey that measures behavioral and attitudinal aspects
of acculturation/enculturation and can be applied across ethnic groups (Stephenson, 2000).
Inherent in the SMAS is the belief that acculturation is a multidimensional process and results in
one of four modes: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization. The measurement
tool consists of two subscales, Dominant Society Identification (15 items) and Ethnic Society
Identification (17 items) and both subscales address the topics of language, interaction, media,
and food. Participants respond using a 4-point, Likert-type scale where 1=true, 2=partly true,
3=partly false, and 4=false.
Several studies were conducted to test the reliability and validity of the SMAS. Internal
consistency was .86 for the entire scale (Stephenson, 2000). Coefficient aphas for the two
subscales were .97 for Ethnic Society Identification (ESI) and .90 for Dominant Society
Identification (DSI). In the current study, Cronbach alpha coefficient for the ESI subscale
was .84 and it was .82 for the DSI subscale. The SMAS was validated on participants from the
following groups: African Americans, African descendants, Asian Americans, European
Americans, and Hispanic Americans. In terms of construct validity, the Dominant Society
Identification tended to increase from first-generation to third-generation individuals while
Ethnic Society Identification was found to decrease with each successive generation.
Convergent-discriminant validity testing indicated high correlations with similar constructs (i.e.
the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II and the Bidimensional Acculturation
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 59

Scale for Hispanics) and little to no correlation with dissimilar constructs (i.e. when the ethnic
identification subscale on the SMAS was matched with the dominant identification scale on
another measurement tool and vice versa). Additionally, the SMAS incorporated questions
related to the top four content areas found in the broad acculturation measurement analysis
review conducted by Zane and Mak (2003), demonstrating peer consensus, which strengthens its
validity. The present study used the SMAS to evaluate the acculturation of international students
because of its multidimensional design, good psychometric properties, and versatility in
measuring across ethnic groups.
Sense of Belonging to Campus. Sense of belonging is a psychological construct that
seeks to measure students’ feelings of inclusion on campus (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The
instrument was developed based on Bollen and Hoyle’s (1990) dimension of “perceived
cohesion” as an alternative to Tinto’s (1987) widely accepted concept of “integration.” The
authors propose that sense of belonging to campus is a more acceptable construct to encourage
among college students than integration, especially for racially and ethnically underrepresented
populations. It originally contained three items that were measured using an 11-point, Likert-
type scale, where 0=strongly disagree and 10=strongly agree. The internal reliability was .94.
The instrument was later updated to include two more items, for a total of five, and was found to
have an alpha coefficient of .88 (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). The scale was developed for use
with Latino college students but was later validated for use among diverse groups, where the
internal validity was reported as .90 (Johnson et al., 2007). In the current study, Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient was .95. The Sense of Belonging scale was selected because of its promising
future as a more culturally sensitive tool that could be used instead of the “integration” construct.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 60

Intent to Persist. Students’ intent to persist and earn a degree from their current
institution was measured using five questions (see Appendix G). After constructing causal
models of persistence, researchers found that intent to persist among university students has the
largest total effect on actual persistence in comparison with variables such as academic
integration, social integration, grade point average, institutional commitment, and financial
attitudes (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993). A six-point Likert-type scale was used where
potential responses included Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree,
Agree, and Strongly Agree. The alpha coefficient for the present study was .73.
Procedure
All undergraduate international students at the institution were contacted via email by the
principle investigator. A description of the survey, a link to the survey, and a notice on
confidentiality were included in the email. All participants completed the survey online using
Qualtrics, an internet survey platform. To maintain confidentiality of the participants, only the
primary investigator for the study was granted access to the data. All identifying information
from the survey was kept in a separate location from survey responses. On average, the survey
took participants 20 minutes to complete. As an incentive for completing the questionnaire,
students were given the opportunity to enter a drawing for one of three gift certificates to the
school’s bookstore or Amazon.com.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis, advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation,
country of citizenship, satisfaction with advising, and sense of belonging were used as
independent variables. Satisfaction with advising and sense of belonging were also used as
dependent variables, depending on the research question, along with intent to persist. Advising
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 61

relationship, advisor-advisee activities and advising satisfaction levels were measured using
students’ scores from the Academic Advising Inventory (AAI). Acculturation was measured
using the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS), sense of belonging was measured
using the Sense of Belonging to Campus instrument, and intent to persist was measured using
scores from a questionnaire developed for the present study. To examine the hypothesis for
research question one, an independent-samples t-test was used. To examine the hypotheses in
research questions two, three, and four, simultaneous multiple regression analyses were
conducted.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 62

CHAPTER IV: Results
The following chapter provides an overview of the results of the study, including
preliminary analyses, analyses of the research questions, as well as post-hoc analyses. Prior to
analysis, the independent and dependent variables were examined for accuracy of data entry,
missing values, fit between their distributions, and the assumptions of multivariate analysis.
Mean substitution was used if participants were missing one item on a scale. Their mean score
for the other items was calculated and included. If participants were missing two or more
responses on a scale, their scores were dropped on the relevant analysis. All variables had 3.3%
or less missing data.
Results of the evaluation of assumptions led to transformation of several variables to
reduce skewness, reduce the number of outliers, and improve the normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity of residuals. The advising relationship subscale of Academic Decision-Making,
the acculturation subscales of Ethnic Society Identification and Dominant Society Identification,
satisfaction with academic advising, and sense of belonging distributions differed moderately
from normal and had negative skewness; therefore, the variables were reflected and then square
root transformations were performed. The advisor-advisee activities distribution had positive
skewness so square root transformation was performed. No transformation was necessary for the
advising relationship subscale of Personalizing Education and the intent to persist distribution.
Preliminary Analyses
Correlations. Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the
relationships between demographic variables (e.g. gender, age, student entry status: freshman or
transfer, time living in the U.S. and time studying current degree program) along with advising
relationship, advisor-advisee activities, satisfaction with academic advising, acculturation, sense
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 63

of belonging, and intent to persist. The means, standard deviations and correlation are
summarized in Table 6.
Age of the student was positively correlated with time living in the U.S. (r = .27, p = .00)
and time studying the current degree program (r = .44, p = .00). In addition to age, time living in
the U.S. was positively associated with time studying the current degree program (r = .63, p
= .00) and intent to persist to graduation (r = .17, p = .00). Time in the current degree program
was negatively correlated with a developmental advising relationship on the Personalizing
Education subscale (r = -.13, p = .03), and it was positively associated with sense of belonging (r
= .13, p = .03) and intent to persist (r = .14, p = .02). The students’ parental income was
positively correlated with acculturation to U.S. society (r = .20, p = .00).
A stronger developmental advising relationship, as opposed to a prescriptive advising
relationship, on the Personalizing Education subscale was positively correlated with the
frequency of advisor-advisee activities (r = .31, p = .00), satisfaction with the academic advising
(r = .29, p = .00), the Dominant Society Identification subscale of the acculturation inventory (r
= .14, p = .02), and sense of belonging (r = .14, p = .02). Moreover, a stronger developmental
advising relationship, as opposed to a prescriptive advising relationship, on the Academic
Decision-Making subscale was positively correlated with satisfaction with academic advising (r
= .38, p = .00), the Dominant Society Identification subscale of the acculturation inventory (r
= .12, p = .03), sense of belonging (r = .22, p = .00), and intent to persist (r = .20, p = .00).
The frequency of advisor-advisee activities was positively associated with satisfaction
with academic advising (r = .16, p = .01) and negatively associated with intent to persist (r = -.21,
p = .00). Satisfaction with academic advising was positively correlated with the Ethnic Society
Identification subscale (r = .18, p = .00) and the Dominant Society Identification subscale of the
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 64

Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Gender .08 .13
*
-.04 -.01 -.10 -.06 -.05 -.15
*
-.11 .00 -.05 -.05
2. Age 20.51 2.13 -- .27
**
.27
**
.44
**
-.04 -.09 .06 .06 .00 -.04 .08 .09
3. Entry -- .20
**
.30
**
-.04 -.06 -.01 -.05 .03 -.10 .02 .00
4. Mo in US 29.35 25.55 -- .63
**
-.05 -.02 -.11 .08 .10 .01 .08 .17
**

5. Mo in DP 22.48 18.14 -- -.13
*
.03 -.11 .05 .10 .02 .13
*
.14
*

AAI
DPA
6. PE 36.91 9.72 -- .06 .31
**
.29
**
.02 .14
*
.14
*
-.02
7. ADM 21.08 5.57 -- .10 .38
**
.11 .12
*
.22
**
.20
**

8. Activities 28.94 23.85 -- .16
**
-.06 .11 .08 -.21
**

9. Satisfact 22.60 4.88 -- .18
**
.24
**
.33
**
.38
**

SMAS
10. ESI 53.95 8.23 -- -.03 .15
**
.17
**

11. DSI 44.26 7.50 -- .47
**
.25
**

12. Belonging 7.52 2.02 -- .50
**

13. Persist 5.09 .86 --
Notes. 1. Gender (1=Female, 2=Male); 2. Age; 3. Entry=Started at current institution as freshman or transfer student (1=Freshman, 2=Transfer); 4. Mo in
US=Months living in United States; 5. Mo in DP=Months studying current degree program; AAI (Academic Advising Inventory); DPA (Developmental-
Prescriptive Advising); 6. PE=Personalizing Education; 7. ADM=Academic Decision-Making; 8. Activities =Advisor-Advisee Activities; 9.
Satisfact=Satisfaction with Advising; SMAS (Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale); 10. ESI=Ethnic Society Identification; 11. DSI=Dominant Society
Identification; 12. Belonging=Sense of Belonging; 13. Persist=Intent to Persist
*p<0.05. **p<0.01.!

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 65

acculturation inventory (r = .24, p = .00), sense of belonging (r = .33, p = .00), and intent to
persist (r = .38, p = .00). Furthermore, Ethic Society Identification and Dominant Society
Identification were both positively correlated with sense of belonging (r = .15, p = .01), (r = .47,
p = .00) and intent to persist (r = .17, p = .00), (r = .25, p = .00); however, there was no
relationship found between these two acculturation subscales. And finally, sense of belonging
was positively associated with intent to persist (r = .50, p = .00).
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question 1: Are there ethnic group differences by countries of origin in advising
satisfaction among international college students?
Participants’ countries of origin were extremely heterogeneous (see Table 2) and because
of this diversity the only group large enough for analysis was China. Therefore, an independent-
samples t-test was conducted to compare the advising satisfaction scores for Chinese students
and all other ethnic groups. There was no significant difference in scores for Chinese (M = 22.47,
SD = 4.77) and all other students (M = 22.68, SD = 4.94; t (296) = -.35, p = .73, two-tailed). The
magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = .21, 95% CI: -1.42 to .99) was
very small (eta squared = .0004).
Research Question 2: Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, and acculturation
predict advising satisfaction among international college students?
To determine to what extent the independent variables of advising relationship, advisor-
advisee activities, and acculturation were predictors of advising satisfaction, simultaneous
multiple regression was performed using two relationship subscales of Personalizing Education
and Academic Decision-Making, as well as two acculturation subscales of Ethnic Society
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 66

Identification and Dominant Society Identification along with one scale score of advisor-advisee
activity frequency. The criterion variable used was satisfaction with academic advising.
Results revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (5, 280) = 21.88, p
< .000) with 28% of the variance being explained. A summary of the regression model (see
Table 7) indicates that four of the five variables significantly contributed to the model. The
advising relationship subscale of Academic Decision-Making was the best predictor, followed by
the Personalizing Education subscale and then the acculturation subscales of Ethnic Society
Identification and Dominant Society Identification. Frequency of advisor-advisee activities was
found to be non-significant. The results suggest that students who report a more developmental
advising relationship, as opposed to a prescriptive advising relationship, also report higher levels
of advising satisfaction. Additionally, students who report higher scores on the Ethnic and/or
Dominant Society Identification subscales also report higher levels of advising satisfaction.
Table 7
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis of Advising Relationship,
Advisor-Advisee Activities, and Acculturation on Satisfaction with Advising
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
Advising Satisfaction .281 21.875 .000

Advising Relationship

Personalizing Education .022 .005 .243 .000
Academic Decisions .357 .055 .339 .000

Activities .031 .022 .078 .154

Acculturation

Ethnic Society .110 .042 .133 .010
Dominant Society .113 .047 .123 .017

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 67

Research Question 3: Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, and
advising satisfaction predict sense of belonging among international college students?
To determine to what extent the independent variables of advising relationship, advisor-
advisee activities, acculturation, and advising satisfaction were predictors of sense of belonging,
simultaneous multiple regression was performed using two relationship subscales of
Personalizing Education and Academic Decision-Making, as well as two acculturation subscales
of Ethnic Society Identification and Dominant Society Identification along with one scale score
of advisor-advisee activity frequency and another for advising satisfaction. The criterion
variable used was sense of belonging.
Results revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (6, 279) = 17.56, p
< .000) with 27% of the variance being explained. A summary of the regression model (see
Table 8) indicates that three of the six variables significantly contributed to the model. The
acculturation subscale of Dominant Society Identification was found to be the most significant
predictor of sense of belonging, followed by satisfaction with academic advising and then Ethnic
Society Identification. No significant relationships were found for either of the advising
relationship subscales or advisor-advisee activity frequency. Therefore, the type of advising
relationship (i.e. developmental or prescriptive) and the frequency of contact between the advisor
and the advisee do not contribute to students’ sense of belonging; however, those who reported
higher scores on Domestic Society Identification, Ethnic Society Identification, and satisfaction
with their academic advising experience tended to report a higher sense of belonging to campus.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 68

Table 8
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis of Advising Relationship, Advisor-
Advisee Activities, Acculturation, and Advising Satisfaction on Sense of Belonging
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
Sense of Belonging .274 17.555 .000

Advising Relationship

Personalizing Education .002 .003 .045 .421
Academic Decisions .047 .036 .074 .188

Activities -.007 .013 -.028 .611

Acculturation

Ethnic Society .059 .026 .118 .024
Dominant Society .230 .029 .418 .000

Advising Satisfaction .094 .036 .156 .010

Research Question 4: Do advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation,
advising satisfaction and sense of belonging predict intent to persist to graduation among
international college students?
To determine to what extent the independent variables of advising relationship, advisor-
advisee activities, acculturation, advising satisfaction, and sense of belonging were predictors of
intent to persist to graduation, simultaneous multiple regression was performed using two
relationship subscales of Personalizing Education and Academic Decision-Making, as well as
two acculturation subscales of Ethnic Society Identification and Dominant Society Identification
along with one scale score of advisor-advisee activity frequency, one for advising satisfaction,
and one for sense of belonging. The criterion variable used was intent to persist.
Results revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (7, 278) = 25.42, p
< .000) with 39% of the variance being explained. A summary of the regression model (see
Table 9) indicates that three of the seven variables significantly contributed to the model. Sense
of belonging, advising satisfaction, and advisor-advisee activities were significant predictors of
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 69

intent to persist. These results suggested that international students who reported a sense of
belonging to campus and satisfaction with their academic advising experiences tended to have a
higher intent to persist to graduation; however, students who reported more frequent advisor-
advisee activities tended to have a lower intent to persist. All advising relationship and
acculturation subscales were found to be non-significant.
Table 9
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis of Advising Relationship,
Advisor-Advisee Activities, Acculturation, Advising Satisfaction, and Sense of
Belonging on Intent to Persist
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
Intent to Persist .390 25.421 .000

Advising Relationship

Personalizing Education -.009 .005 -.098 .059
Academic Decisions .030 .053 .029 .571

Activities -.108 .020 -.275 .000

Acculturation

Ethnic Society .026 .039 .033 .497
Dominant Society .012 .048 .014 .794

Advising Satisfaction .300 .055 .307 .000

Sense of Belonging .683 .089 .421 .000

Post-Hoc Analysis
Due to the richness of the data and the desire to empirically examine theoretical concepts
presented in the academic advising literature, post-hoc analysis was also conducted to examine
potential relationships between supplemental survey questions and students’ satisfaction with
advising.
Post-Hoc Question: Is there a relationship between the supplemental international-oriented
advising questions and satisfaction with advising among international college students?
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 70

The authors of the Academic Advising Inventory (AAI) mentioned an optional fifth
section of the survey allowing researchers to develop their own questions related to academic
advising to add at the end of the instrument (Winston & Sandor, 2002). Furthermore, several
scholars have pointed out the need for advisors to discuss additional, distinctive topics to better
understand how to best assist international students. Like most measurement tools related to
academic advising, the AAI does not directly include questions about topics that have been
suggested to be important for increasing international student advising satisfaction. Therefore,
new items were written for the present study (Appendix D); advisor-advisee activities items were
developed to include questions written purposely for this unique population. Specifically for
international students, theorists suggest advisors should facilitate activities that allow them to (1)
advise the whole student, (2) understand the student’s family background, (3) provide
mentorship, (4) build trust to make personal meaning, (5) understand identity, (6) develop
multicultural competencies, and (7) be in the student’s world (Gordon, Habley, Grites &
Associates, 2008). The present study included supplemental, advisor-advisee activity items that
addressed topics such as: whether or not the pair discussed the student’s home country, family,
cultural differences, and the advisor’s advising philosophy.
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships
between the additional questions and students’ satisfaction with advising. All items were
significantly correlated with advising satisfaction. The strongest correlation was between
advisor preparation and advising satisfaction (r = .58, p = .00); students who felt their advisors
came prepared for their meetings tended to be more satisfied with the advising they received.
Additionally, there was a positive association between advising satisfaction and students who
indicated their advisors understood them when they talked (r = .55, p = .00). Furthermore,
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 71

students who indicated their advisors were familiar with their cultural background reported
higher levels of advising satisfaction than students who indicated a lower level of familiarity (r
= .40, p = .00). Supplemental international student advising questions and their associations with
advising satisfaction are displayed in Table 10.
Table 10
Pearson Product Correlations for Supplemental International Student Advising Questions and
Advising Satisfaction
Advising Satisfaction
My academic advisor is familiar with my cultural
background.
.40**
My academic advisor asks about my home country. .27**
My academic advisor asks about my family. .13*
My academic advisor understands me when we talk. .55**
My academic advisor and I discuss cultural similarities and/or
differences between the U.S. and my home culture.
.18**
My academic advisor shares his or her advising philosophy
with me.
.17**
My academic advisor comes prepared for our meetings. .58**
My academic advisor treats me unfavorably because of my
international status.
-.27**
Note: *p<0.05. **p<0.01.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 72

CHAPTER V: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore institutional and cultural factors that may predict
satisfaction with academic advising among undergraduate international students in the United
States. More specifically, a principal goal was to examine the association of the advising
relationship, advisor-advisee activities, acculturation, and country of citizenship with advising
satisfaction among international college students. Additionally, this study investigated an
alternative to Tinto’s integration model by examining the relationship between advising
satisfaction, sense of belonging, and intent to persist in international college students. Finally,
the study explored the relationship between the advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities,
acculturation, advising satisfaction, and sense of belonging on intent to persist to graduate among
undergraduate international students.
The results of this study suggest advising relationship and acculturation can be used as
important variables to understand international students’ satisfaction with academic advising.
Acculturation and advising satisfaction can be used in an attempt to understand sense of
belonging, and furthermore, advisor-advisee activities, advising satisfaction, and sense of
belonging can be used as noteworthy variables in understanding students’ intent to persist to
graduation. The following chapter provides a summary and discussion of the findings, organized
by independent variables, followed by limitations of the study. Directions for future research
and implications for practice will also be discussed.
Summary and Discussion of Main Findings
Relationships between Advising Satisfaction, Sense of Belonging, and Intent to
Persist. The present study explored whether advising satisfaction predicted sense of belonging
and intent to persist among international undergraduate students. It was hypothesized that a
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 73

greater satisfaction with academic advising would predict a greater sense of belonging to campus
and a greater intent to persist to graduation. Both hypotheses were supported; those who
reported being more satisfied with academic advising reported a greater sense of belonging and a
greater intent to persist. These findings continue to validate research that suggests advisors may
be able to enhance students’ sense of belonging by providing critical social support as they
transition and adjust to college life (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, & Salomone, 2002; Johnson
et al., 2007). Students receiving effective academic advising tend to feel positive not only about
the process but the institution as well (Crockett, 1978). Advisors are in a position to build
positive relationships with international students and increase their sense of belonging.
Additionally, the results of this study reiterate the importance of academic advising for
retention. Previous studies along with the present one have found that academic advising is a
promising field in which university leadership can invest to help improve student performance
and persistence (Beal & Noel, 1980; Braxton & McClendon, 2002; Habley & McClanahan,
2004; Hossler, 1990). Advising is the most frequently cited student service in terms of a positive
association with student persistence (Hossler, 1990). Students who are satisfied with advising
are more likely to be retained (Crockett, 1978). The present study aligned with previous work
that suggested academic advising is one of the most powerful institutional factors that reduce
college student departure and enhance students’ acclimation to college (Braxton & Mundy,
2001). Similarly, Metzner (1989) revealed that high-quality advising, where quality is defined by
student perception (analogous with the present study), negatively influenced attrition. The
similarities between this study and previous research continue. Analysis put forth by Gordon et
al. (2008) of the NSSE (2005) data found that, “the quality of academic advising is the single
most powerful predictor of satisfaction with the campus environment for students at four-year
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 74

schools” (p. 73), Furthermore, academic advising was ranked as a leading factor promoting
student persistence when student satisfaction and retention were studied across hundreds of
higher education institutions (Beal & Noel, 1980; Habley & McClanahan, 2004). Academic
advising promotes retention and advisors are in a position to help international students succeed.
They serve as agents between the institution and international students, helping them adjust to
academic demands and achieve academic success (Charles & Stewart, 1991).
In addition to satisfaction with advising, this study sought to examine whether sense of
belonging predicted intent to persist among international college students. The hypothesis that a
greater sense of belonging will predict a greater intent to persist was supported. These results
continue to support the work of Hurtado and Carter (1997) and Johnson and her colleagues
(2007). The present study examined their alternative to Tinto’s integration theory. Integration
theory stated that the more a student is academically and socially integrated into the
corresponding systems of the school, the less likely they are to drop out (Tinto, 1987). Instead,
Hurtado and Carter (1997) proposed that greater attention should be paid to students’ subjective
sense of integration (i.e. sense of belonging) as opposed to the primarily behavior-focused
integration.
As suggested by Hurtado and Carter (1997) and later by Johnson et al. (2007), sense of
belonging is a more culturally sensitive predictor of retention than integration, and the present
study reiterates their findings that sense of belong predicts persistence. Additionally, results of
this study support the work of Hausmann et al. (2007) who suggested students who feel a
psychological connection to their institution are more likely to persist. By promoting sense of
belonging, the expectation is that international students are able to feel part of the campus
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 75

community without feeling pressured to conform to or adopt the values of the majority (Bollen &
Hoyle, 1990), and this will lead to greater persistence to graduation.
Relationship between Acculturation and the Dependent Variables. The present study
sought to investigate whether acculturation predicted advising satisfaction, sense of belonging,
and intent to persist. As little to no research has been conducted on the relationship between
acculturation and these outcome variables, no hypotheses were developed and exploratory
analyses were conducted. It was found that acculturation predicted advising satisfaction and
sense of belonging but not intent to persist among international college students. More
specifically, higher Ethnic Society Identification and Dominant Society Identification both
contributed to greater satisfaction with academic advising. Dominant Society Identification, but
not Ethnic Society Identification, was positively associated with sense of belonging. Berry
(1992) defined four acculturation strategies in the orthogonal model: assimilation, integration,
separation, and marginalization. Integration refers to those individuals who retain their cultural
identity while at the same time join the larger societal framework, and assimilation involves
abandoning one’s home cultural identity and adopting the new culture. To describe the results of
the present study using Berry’s terminology, those students who were more integrated tended to
report a greater satisfaction with advising. Furthermore, students who reported being more
assimilated tended to experience a greater sense of belonging to campus. It is important for
advisors to consider students’ acculturation strategies. Advisors may need to play a stronger role
in helping marginalized students as they navigate the demands of a new educational environment
(Schlosser et al., 2011). The results of the present study reiterate the important role acculturation
plays in international student adjustment.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 76

Relationship between Advising Relationship and the Dependent Variables.
Additionally, this study sought to explore if advising relationship was a predictor of advising
satisfaction, sense of belonging, and intent to persist among international college students. More
specifically, it was hypothesized that a developmental advising relationship would predict higher
levels of advising satisfaction, sense of belonging, and intent to persist. The results
demonstrated higher developmental (versus prescriptive) advising relationship scores predicted
higher advising satisfaction scores on both advising relationship subscales (i.e. Personalizing
Education and Academic Decision-Making). However, a developmental advising relationship
was not a statistically significant predictor of sense of belonging or intent to persist. These
findings continue to validate research by Alexitch (1997; 2002) and Winston and Sandor (2002)
who found that a developmental advising relationship positively correlated with advising
satisfaction. Additionally, Coll (2008) found that developmental advising led to overall student
satisfaction.
Although the present study examined students’ recollection of actual experiences with
their academic advisors, several previous studies reported on students’ preference for
developmental advising and how their preference related to advising satisfaction. Alexitch
(1997) found that students reported preferring a more developmental advising style than they had
received. Also supporting the present study, Cadieux and Wehrly (1986) found that international
students in particular, reported appreciating developmental advising strategies.
It is important for students to feel valued and cared for by the university, and advisors
following a developmental approach can achieve this objective (Drake, 2011; Heisserer &
Parette, 2002). Scholars suggest that advising grounded in developmental theory is necessary
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 77

due to the increasing diversity in the student body. Developmental theory allows the flexibility
needed to work effectively with diverse students (Jeschke et al., 2001).
The results of this study did not support previous findings regarding advising relationship
and sense of belonging and retention. Drake (2011) discussed developmental advising leading to
a stronger connection to the institution among college students. The results of the present study
did not find a relationship between developmental advising and sense of belonging to campus.
Additionally, Coll (2008) found that developmental advising led to student retention but this
finding was not supported by the present study.
Relationship between Advisor-Advisee Activities and the Dependent Variables. In
addition to examining if acculturation and the advising relationship predicted the three outcome
variables, this study sought to examine if advisor-advisee activities predicted satisfaction with
advising, sense of belonging, and intent to persist among international college students. It was
hypothesized that a higher frequency of advisor-advisee activities would predict higher levels of
advising satisfaction, sense of belonging, and intent to persist. Advisor-advisee activities were
not related to advising satisfaction or sense of belonging. Additionally, advisor-advisee activities
and intent to persist were not positively correlated; however, surprisingly, a significant, negative
association was found. Students who reported more frequent advisor-advisee activities tended to
have a lower intent to persist. The results of this study were inconsistent with previous findings.
For example, Winston and Sandor (2002) found that frequency of activities positively correlated
with advising satisfaction. Moreover, another study that administered the AAI found that
advising satisfaction positively correlated with the frequency for all five activities subgroups
(Alexitch, 1997). Furthermore, the researcher asked students about their preferred frequencies
and found that students’ preferred frequencies were significantly higher than the actual
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 78

frequencies of the advising activities. Additionally, Braxton and McClendon (2002) claimed that
students who reflect upon faculty teaching practices, one specific advisor-advisee activity, prior
to selecting courses were more likely to persist to graduation, whereas the present study did not
find a connection between advising activities and retention.
Grouping all of the advising activities into one frequency count may have led to
inconsistent findings. In the present study, students who reported unusually high frequencies
tended to do so on items such as “discussing probation and dismissal policies” and “discussing
financial aid.” Therefore, the hypotheses may have been supported if only positive, proactive
activity (e.g. career direction, discussing extracurricular possibilities, getting to know one
another) items were taken into consideration. The students who reported an extremely high
frequency of advisor-advisee activities may have interacted with their advisors because they
were struggling, which likely made them less satisfied with their overall college experience, and
therefore less likely to report satisfaction with advising, a sense of belonging to campus, and an
intent to persist.
Limitations
Limitations of the present study must be taken into consideration and include matters of
design, validity, and generalizability. To begin, this study sought to examine ethnic group
differences by countries of origin in advising satisfaction among international college students.
It was hypothesized that home country group differences would be found; however, participants’
countries of origin were extremely heterogeneous and because of this diversity the only group
large enough for analysis was China. The hypothesis was not supported, as there was no
significant difference in scores for Chinese compared to all other students. Previous research has
shown trends by country of citizenship in help-seeking behaviors, language difficulties,
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 79

interactions with authority figures, racial discrimination, development of new friendships, and
homesickness (Dadfar & Friedlander, 1982; Oliver et al., 1999; Charles & Stewart, 1991; Chen,
1999; Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008). Nevertheless, the relationship between country of origin
and advising satisfaction had not previously been studied. Although no significant difference
between country of origin and advising satisfaction was found in the present study, the results do
not make a strong statement due to the disproportionate group sizes. Ideally, there would have
been several groups of roughly equal size that could have been compared. The heterogeneity of
the undergraduate international student population at the institution in the present study is
evident, especially compared to the graduate student population at the same university.
Combining all of the students into one group to compare with Chinese students was an imperfect
method. Because of the extreme variation between countries of origin in the combined group, it
is not surprising that the findings were insignificant.
A second limitation of the study is the use of self-reported data. The results of the survey
relied upon participants’ recollection of past experiences, where errors in recall are entirely
possible. Additionally, self-reported data is a participant’s perception of his/herself and
experiences and may differ from reality. Self-reported data also brings with it the inherent risk
of social desirability bias. Despite the assurance of confidentiality, participants may have felt
uncomfortable providing honest responses to particular questions.
Third, there is a potential self-selection bias. Participants who completed the survey
volunteered after receiving a request via email. Students who chose to participate may not have
been a representative sample of the population. For example, international students’ comfort
level with the English language varies greatly. As the survey was in English, students who were
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 80

more confident in their English language abilities may have been more likely to complete the
survey.
Finally, generalizing results of the present study should be approached with caution.
Participants came from one private institution on the West Coast in a highly diverse urban
context. It may not be appropriate to generalize results to institutions of a different size,
geographic location, Carnegie Classification, or student characteristic distribution. Furthermore,
although the range in participant country of origin was impressive, several of the countries were
represented by as little as one student, thus, attempting to make generalized statements about
populations from those particular countries would be inappropriate.
Directions for Future Research
The moderate amount of variance accounted for in the analyses suggests that additional
factors may be influencing international college students’ satisfaction with advising, sense of
belonging, and intent to persist. Further research could bring more clarity to understanding
international students’ adjustment and persistence. The field could benefit from additional
research that differs in methodology, design, and approach.
To begin, qualitative research could provide a depth that a quantitative methodology
could not. Interviews and focus groups with international students would allow for a subset of
students to provide more detail about their experiences. Furthermore, quantitative and/or
qualitative analysis of the advisors’ perceptions would enhance researchers’ understanding of the
U.S. international student population. Capturing the advisor perspective, alongside the student
view, would lead to a richer understanding of the advising process for international students.
Also, where possible, student record data (e.g. GPA, number of advising sessions) could be
obtained so the reliance on self-reported information would be reduced.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 81

While the present study provided a cross-sectional analysis, a longitudinal study could
provide a deeper assessment of international student college experiences. Participants could be
tracked across years, potential advisor changes, and observed until graduation. Where attrition
occurred, follow up surveys could be conducted to better understand factors leading to departure.
As many of the suggestions for how to best assist international students are derived from
theory, further research should be conducted to test their validity. As a starting point, the present
study turned theoretical statements into survey questions that were all significantly correlated
with advising satisfaction. This area of study is in its infancy and needs further empirical
attention. Furthermore, additional variables should be examined (e.g. attitudes toward help-
seeking behavior, self-efficacy) in relation to the variables in the present study in an attempt to
lead to more definitive results. Finally, a broader range of participants should be included so
greater confidence can be placed in the generalizability of the results.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study provide important implications for university administrators and
researchers in their efforts to gain a better understanding of the U.S. undergraduate international
student population. To begin, advising matters. Literature on student retention suggests that
contact with a significant person within the school is a critical factor when a student is
considering departure (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Glennen, Farren, & Vowell, 1996).
Students’ perception of their relationship with an advisor is well documented as a factor in
successful retention efforts (Coll, 2008), and the present study confirms these findings.
According to Light (2001), “Good advising may be the single most underestimated characteristic
of a successful college experience” (p. 81). Additionally, there is a connection between
satisfaction with advising, sense of belonging, and retention. This was the first study to examine
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 82

the relationship between the three variables. Quality advising predicts a sense of belonging and
sense of belonging predicts intent to persist to graduation.
Advisors serve as agents between the institution and international students, helping them
adjust to academic demands and achieve academic success (Charles & Stewart, 1991). To help
international students acclimate and learn the language of U.S. higher education, advisors can act
as institutional agents, where they have the capacity and commitment to transfer directly or
negotiate the transmission of institutional resources and opportunities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Institutional agents can operate through both developmental and prescriptive relationship
behaviors to teach students how to build social capital and decode the system. Academic
advisors must take time to build a network of relationships across their institution and understand
resources available to students. Beyond interpersonal skill development, advisors who serve as
institutional agents need a firm understanding of institutional policies. The more they understand
about their institution’s resources and procedures, the more they will be able to provide clear,
succinct guidance to international students. Ultimately, university officials must determine the
best use of their financial resources to increase international student success. The results of the
present study, combined with previous research, suggest investment into academic advising
resources would be a rewarding endeavor.
In addition to confirming the general importance of academic advising, the results of this
study demonstrated, more specifically, that higher developmental advising relationship scores
predicted higher advising satisfaction scores. Although these findings were consistent with
many previous studies, it has become apparent that international students appreciate prescriptive
advising interactions as well (Brown & Rivas, 1994; Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Smith & Allen,
2006). This may be especially true for international students because they tend to expect a more
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 83

formal relationship with their academic advisor. A completely developmental approach may
seem too relaxed and informal to them, as they may desire concrete answers and firm direction
(Charles & Stewart, 1991). They may seek hierarchical relationships in their new educational
system due to discomfort that arises with mutuality, and therefore a prescriptive approach, at
least in the beginning, may be well received (Goto, 1999). Although developmental advising
predicted satisfaction with advising, that does not necessarily mean prescriptive advising does
not also predict advising satisfaction. When prescriptive and developmental are presented on a
continuum, as seen in the present study and many others that came before it, developmental
advising is the better predictor of higher levels of advising satisfaction; however, research has
indicated this view is too simplistic to accurately represent important details that are
overshadowed by pinning the relationship styles against each other. College students, and
particularly international college students, have indicated a preference for both, and therefore, a
more nuanced approach should be developed to study advising relationships. Perhaps
developmental and prescriptive advising should not be situated together on the same continuum,
but instead, be measured independently of one another in attempt to understand situational and
individual characteristic differences when it comes to how each style relates to advising
satisfaction.
The results of the present study suggest another implication for academic advising
practice. In addition to rethinking the framework of an effective advising relationship, the data
suggests individual differences should be taken into account when determining what advisor-
advisee activities would be the most useful during an advising session (Smith & Allen, 2006).
Advisor-advisee activities that directly or indirectly address a student’s acculturation are
important because acculturation is an essential variable to consider when addressing the unique
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 84

differences among international students. Acculturation is one of the most significant elements
of adaptation for ethnic minorities in a given society (Zane & Mak, 2003), and the results of the
present study continue to validate the importance of acculturation in understanding international
student experiences. Advisors should be mindful of how international students identify with
their home country and U.S. cultures. Generally speaking, students who identify strongly with
both their home culture and the culture of their new environment experience the least amount of
stress and adapt better than those who show low levels of identification with one our both
cultures (Berry, 2005). Individuals taking a marginalization approach (i.e. low identification
with both home country and U.S. cultures) have the hardest time adapting and may need
additional support from their advisors. For example, they may need to see their advisors more
frequently and may benefit from advisor referrals to campus resources for added support.
Furthermore, researchers suggest helping professionals need to be especially aware of variables
such as communication style (e.g. emphasis on verbal versus non-verbal cues), as it tends to
change with acculturation. This change may affect important interpersonal processes between
the advisor and the advisee (Zane & Mak, 2003).
Additionally, to increase advising satisfaction, the advisor must recognize the unique
needs of each student. The results of the international student-specific supplemental question
analyses further support the importance of engaging in activities that theorists hypothesized were
beneficial for this population. All of the supplemental advising activities evaluated were positive
correlated with advising satisfaction. As researchers have indicated and the results of the present
study reiterate, learning about students’ backgrounds position advisors to better assist students in
adjusting to a new academic environment (Winston et al., 1984).
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 85

To illuminate the importance of these empirically-supported advising behaviors,
institutions may wish to consider educating advisors on the theoretical concept of intercultural
praxis, a subject recognized in the academic discipline of intercultural communication.
Intercultural praxis is the process of critical, reflective thinking and acting that enables
individuals to navigate the complex and challenging intercultural spaces inhabited
interpersonally, communally, and globally (Sorrells, 2013). According to Sorrells (2013), “The
purpose of engaging in intercultural praxis is to raise our awareness, increase our critical analysis,
and develop our socially responsible action in regard to our intercultural interactions” (p. 16).
By studying intercultural communication, advisors may develop a mindset that can be useful in
the context of any advising relationship style and encourages the use of international student-
specific advisor-advisee activities. Engaging in intercultural praxis may also assist advisors with
keeping acculturation in the forefront of their minds while working with international students,
and by doing so, may lead to greater satisfaction with advising among international students.
Advisors may want to consider something as simple as hanging a world map in their offices and,
as an icebreaker, asking new students to indicate where they consider home. This can be used as
an opener to an early exchange between the pair, allowing the advisor to express an interest in
the student’s background. Additionally, with the changing demographic of both international
and domestic students in the U.S., advisors must reflect upon how this transformation in the
student body might affect their work. For example, an Asian American domestic student’s
identity development and adjustment concerns may be very different than an Asian international
student’s identity development trajectory and concerns. There will be considerable variance
within each of theses groups as well. Training programs (e.g. new advisor orientation,
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 86

continuing professional development, advising-related master’s degrees) should modify their
curriculum to account for the changing demographics of advisees.
Taking the concept of intercultural praxis a step further, advisors could work to facilitate
domestic-international student interaction, guided by intercultural praxis philosophy, to foster the
growth of cross-cultural knowledge among both international and domestic students. For
example, advisors could consider this objective while structuring new student orientation, group
advising sessions and/or freshman seminar courses. Students should be encouraged to engage in
dialogue and learn from one another, with the goal of expanding their cross-cultural
competencies, and advisors are in a position to promote this process.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore institutional and cultural factors that may predict
satisfaction with academic advising, sense of belonging to campus, and intent to persist to
graduation among undergraduate international students. The results revealed the advising
relationship and acculturation were significant predictors of international students’ satisfaction
with academic advising. In addition, acculturation and advising satisfaction were important
influences on sense of belonging. Moreover, advisor-advisee activities, advising satisfaction,
and sense of belonging can be used as important variables in predicting intent to persist to
graduation. No significant differences were found between countries of origin and advising
satisfaction. Results of exploratory analysis found that theoretically-based supplemental advising
questions specifically tailored toward international student desires were positively correlated
with advising satisfaction.
As indicated in the introduction, international students are a continuously expanding
segment of diversity on university campuses and students who attend a school with a diverse
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 87

population are more likely to enhance their cultural sensitivity and build the skills necessary to
work effectively with people from a variety of backgrounds (Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005).
Additionally, students educated in diverse institutions with opportunities to interact with diverse
peers will be better equipped to participate in an increasingly heterogeneous and complex society
(Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Finding ways to help international students succeed will
not only benefit the international student population, but has the potential of benefiting domestic
students and U.S. society as a whole.
In conclusion, the advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, and acculturation can
have a significant positive impact on international college students’ advising satisfaction, sense
of belonging, and persistence. With this new knowledge, researchers can continue to investigate
the nature of institutional and cultural variables to advance the understanding of factors that lead
to U.S. undergraduate international student success.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 88

References
Alexitch, L. R. (1997). Students’ educational orientation and preferences for advising from
university professors. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 333–343.
Alexitch, L. R. (2002). The role of help-seeking attitudes and tendencies in students’ preferences
for academic advising. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 5–19.
Appleby, D. (2001a). The teaching-advising connection: Part III. The Mentor, 3(1). Retrieved
from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor
Appleby, D. (2001b). The teaching-advising connection: Part IV. The Mentor, 3(2). Retrieved
from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor
Appleby, D. (2001c). The teaching-advising connection: Part V. The Mentor, 3(2). Retrieved
from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006). College learning for the new global
century. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Beal, P. E., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention. Iowa City, IA: American
College Testing Program.
Berry, J. W. (1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration, 30,
69–85.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, &
G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research
(pp. 17–37). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 89

Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and
Coping, 287–298.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation,
identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 303–332.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. doi:10.1093/sf/69.2.479
Braxton, J. M., & McClendon, S. A. (2002). The fostering of social integration and retention
through institutional practice. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 3(1), 57–71.
Braxton, J. M., & Mundy, M. E. (2001). Powerful institutional levers to reduce college student
departure. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 3(1),
91–118. doi:10.2190/M127-V05B-5E5J-F9LQ
Brown, R. D. (1989). [Review of the test Academic Advising Inventory]. In The tenth mental
measurements yearbook. Retrieved from http://buros.unl.edu/buros/
Brown, T., & Rivas, M. (1994). The prescriptive relationship in academic advising as an
appropriate developmental intervention with multicultural populations. NACADA Journal,
14(2), 108–111.
Burrell, L. F., & Trombley, T. B. (1983). Academic advising with minority students on
predominantly white campuses. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(2), 121–126.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations
modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(2), 123–139. doi:10.2307/2960026
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 90

Cadieux, R. A. J., & Wehrly, B. (1986). Advising and counseling the international student. New
Directions for Student Services, 36(1), 51–63.
Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting
student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. PEER Review, 10(1), 4–7.
Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising of international students. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19(4), 173–181. doi:10.1002/j.2161-
1912.1991.tb00554.x
Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and
counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2(1), 49–65.
Cheng, D. (2004). Students’ sense of campus community: What it means, and what to do about it.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 41(2). doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1331
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Coll, J. E. (2008). A study of academic advising satisfaction and its relationship to student
worldviews. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(3),
391–404. doi:10.2190/CS.10.3.g
Cornett-DeVito, M. M., & Reeves, K. J. (1999). Preparing students for success in a multicultural
world: Faculty advisement in intercultural communication. NACADA Journal, 19(1), 35–
44.
Crockett, D. S. (1978). Academic advising: A cornerstone of student retention. In L. Noel (Ed.),
Reducing the Dropout Rate (Vol. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 91

Crockett, J. B., & Crawford, R. L. (1989). The relationship between Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) Scale scores and advising style preferences of college freshmen.
Journal of College Student Development, 30(2), 154–161.
Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 13, 12–17.
Dadfar, S., & Friedlander, M. L. (1982). Differential attitudes of international students toward
seeking professional psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(3), 335–
338. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.29.3.335
Daller, M. L., Creamer, E. G., & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Advising styles observable in practice:
Counselor, scheduler, and teacher. NACADA Journal, 17(2), 31–38.
Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About
Campus, 16(3), 8–12. doi:10.1002/abc.20062
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.).
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Fielstein, L. . L. (1994). Developmental versus prescriptive advising: Must it be one or the other?
NACADA Journal, 14(2), 76–79.
Fielstein, L. L., Scoles, M. T., & Webb, K. J. (1992). Differences in traditional and
nontraditional students’ preferences for advising services and perceptions of services
received. NACADA Journal, 12(2), 5–12.
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. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.001
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 92

Glennen, R. E., Farren, P. J., & Vowell, F. N. (1996). How advising and retention of students
improves fiscal stability. NACADA Journal, 16(1), 38–41.
Gordon, V. N., Habley, W. R., Grites, T. J., & Associates. (2008). Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goto, S. (1999). Asian Americans and developmental relationships. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby,
& R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within
multicultural organizations (pp. 46–62). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grites, T., & Gordon, V. N. (2000). Developmental academic advising revisited. NACADA
Journal, 20(1), 12–15.
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Review of Higher
Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 29(4), 451–472.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367.
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention. Iowa City, IA:
American College Testing Service.
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor
of intentions to persist among african american and white first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university settings.
College Student Journal, 36, 69–83.
Hemwall, M. K., & Trachte, K. C. (1999). Learning at the core: Toward a new understanding of
academic advising. NACADA Journal, 19(1), 5–11.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 93

Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “sense of
belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 4(3), 227–256.
Hood, M. A., & Schieffer, K. J. (Eds.). (1984). Professional integration: A guide for students
from the developing world. Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student
Affairs.
Hossler, D. (Ed.). (1990). The strategic management of college enrollments. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED326147
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. E. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345. doi:10.2307/2673270
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. doi:10.1177/1538192705276548
Institute of International Education. (2011). Open doors: Report on international educational
exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-
Doors/Data
Jeschke, M. P., Johnson, K. E., & Williams, J. R. (2001). A comparison of intrusive and
prescriptive advising of psychology majors at an urban comprehensive university.
NACADA Journal, 21(1 & 2), 46–58.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H., &
Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 94

from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–
542. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0054
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature. Washington, D.C.: National Postsecondary
Education Cooperative.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lowenstein, M. (1999). An alternative to the developmental theory of advising. The Mentor, 1(4).
Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor
Lowenstein, M. (2000). Academic advising and the “logic” of the curriculum. The Mentor, 2(2).
Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor
Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, 25(2),
65–73.
Metzner, B. S. (1989). Perceived quality of academic advising: The effect on freshman attrition.
American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 422–442.
Mottarella, K. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Cerabino, K. C. (2004). What do students want in
advising? A policy capturing study. NACADA Journal, 24(1), 48–61.
NAFSA Association of International Educators. (2010). The economic benefits of international
education to the United States for the 2009-2010 academic year: A statistical analysis.
Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/eis2010/usa.pdf
O’Banion, T. (1972). An academic advising model. Junior College Journal, 42, 66–69.
O’Banion, T. (1994). Retrospect and prospect. NACADA Journal, 14(2), 117–119.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 95

Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The cultural
identification of minority adolescents. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 655–
685.
Oliver, J. M., Reed, C. K. S., Katz, B. M., & Haugh, J. A. (1999). Students’ self-reports of help-
seeking: the impact of psychological problems, stress, and demographic variables on
utilization of formal and informal support. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 27(2), 109–128. doi:10.2224/sbp.1999.27.2.109
Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. In John M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the
student departure puzzle (pp. 127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rooney, M. (1994). Back to the future: Crookston and O’Banion revisited. NACADA Journal,
14(2), 35–38.
Schlosser, L. Z., Talleyrand, R. M., Lyons, H. Z., Kim, B. S. K., & Johnson, W. B. (2011).
Multicultural issues in graduate advising relationships. Journal of Career Development,
38(1), 19–43. doi:10.1177/0894845309359285
Smith, C., & Allen, J. (2006). Essential functions of academic advising: What students want and
get. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 56–66.
Sorrells, K. (2013). Intercultural communication: Globalization and social justice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–40.
Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation
Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 77.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 96

Suárez-Orozco, M. (2007). Learning in the global era: International perspectives on
globalization and education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and
standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(4), 477–
486.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (2nd ed.).
Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of
Higher Education, 63(6), 603–18.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (1st ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). National population projections. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Winston, R. B. (1994). Developmental academic advising reconsidered: Chimera or unrealized
potentiality. NACADA Journal, 14(2), 112–116.
Winston, R. B., Miller, T. R., Erder, S. C., & Grites, T. G. (1984). Developmental academic
advising. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Winston, R. B., & Sandor, J. A. (1984). Developmental academic advising: What do students
want? NACADA Journal, 4(1), 5–13.
Winston, R. B., & Sandor, J. A. (2002). Evaluating academic advising: Manual for the Academic
Advising Inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates, Inc.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 97

Zane, N., & Mak, W. (2003). Major approaches to the measurement of acculturation among
ethnic minority populations: A content analysis and an alternative empirical strategy. In
K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory,
measurement, and applied research (pp. 39–60). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
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, 209–231.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 98

Appendix A
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Lisa Mataczynski, M.A., and Ruth
H. Chung, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
The results will contribute to the completion of Lisa Mataczynski’s doctoral dissertation. You
were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an international
undergraduate student. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore factors that predict satisfaction with academic advising
and to examine the relationship between advising satisfaction, sense of belonging, and retention
among international college students. More specifically, the purpose is to investigate if there is a
relationship between the advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, country of citizenship,
and acculturation on advising satisfaction among international college students. Additionally,
this study sought to explore the relationship between advising satisfaction and sense of belonging
among international college students.

You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether or not to participate.

Completion of this questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES
You are asked to complete the following online questionnaire that will take about twenty minutes
to complete. If you are unable to complete the questionnaire in one setting, you may save your
progress and return to the website at a later time.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are minimal to no potential negative effects from participating in this study. However, you
can choose not to answer specific questions or to end your participation without penalty.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Results of this study may assist in the expansion of knowledge regarding the relationship
between the advising relationship, advisor-advisee activities, country of citizenship, and
acculturation on advising satisfaction, as well as the relationship between advising satisfaction
and sense of belonging among international college students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
By participating in this survey, you are eligible to enter a raffle to win a $50 Amazon.com gift
certificate or one of two $25 university bookstore gift certificates. In order to participate in the
raffle, you will need to provide your name and e-mail address at the end of the survey, which
will be stored separately from your survey responses. You will be notified at the e-mail address
you provide us, if you are chosen as a raffle winner.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 99

CONFIDENTIALITY
Information obtained in the survey will only be reported in an aggregated form without any
potentially identifiable descriptions connected to individuals. Any information that is obtained in
connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will
be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will
be included that would reveal your identity. Your responses to the online survey will be
downloaded directly by Lisa Mataczynski, M.A. Only members of the research team will have
access to the data associated with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in
a locked file cabinet and password protected computer. The data will be stored for three years
after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
This survey is completely voluntary, and you may choose to terminate this survey at any time. If
you volunteer to participate in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequence.
You may also refuse to answer any questions that you do not want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Ruth
Chung, Ph.D. at rchung@usc.edu, Lisa Mataczynski, M.A. at mataczyn@usc.edu, or call or visit
(213) 740-9323, at the Rossier School of Education, USC, WPH 802, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
4038.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty.
You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this
research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study participant or
you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to
questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please
contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 100

Appendix B
Demographic Information

Please provide the following information:

1. Gender: ___Male ___Female

2. Age: ___

3. In what region is your home country located?
___Africa ___Asia ___Australia/Pacific Islands
___Caribbean ___Central America ___Europe
___North America ___South America

4. Did you enter [university name] as a freshman or a transfer student?
___Freshman ___Transfer

5. How many units (credits) have you completed at [university name]?
___0-16 ___17-32 ___33-48 ___49-64 ___65-80
___81-96 ___97-112 ___113-128 ___more than 128

6. Your year in school:
(add the number of units you have completed at [school name] + any transfer/AP
units appearing on your [school name] transcript)
___Freshman (0-32 units) ___Sophomore (33-64 units)
___Junior (65-96 units) ___Senior (97+ units)
___Other: ______________________

7. How long ago did you begin studying your current degree in the United States?
___Months

8. How long have you lived in the United States?
___Months

9. What college are you in?
___Letters, Arts, & Sciences ___Accounting ___Architecture
___Communication/Journalism ___Business ___Cinematic Arts
___Dentistry ___Engineering ___Fine Arts
___Occupational Therapy ___Gerontology ___Medicine
___Music ___Public Policy ___Theatre

10. What is your major of study? __________________________________________

11. What is your cumulative GPA at [university name]?
___Below 1.0 ___1.0 – 1.99 ___2.0 – 2.99
___3.0 – 3.5 ___3.51 – 4.0 ___Do not have one yet
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 101

12. What is the name of your country of citizenship? __________________________

13. How many years of education does your father have?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was most involved in parenting you as a
father whether it be your biological father, stepfather, grandfather, or some other significant father figure.
___Elementary
___Jr high
___High school
___Some college
___Bachelor’s
___Master’s
___Advanced degree (Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)
___Do not know

14. How many years of education does your mother have?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was most involved in parenting you as a
mother whether it be your biological mother, stepmother, grandmother, or some other significant mother
figure.
___Elementary
___Jr high
___High school
___Some college
___Bachelor’s
___Master’s
___Advanced degree (Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)
___Do not know

15. How would you describe the socioeconomic class background of your family?
____Working class ____Middle class ____Upper middle class
____Lower middle class ____Upper class

16. What is your best estimate of your parents’ total income last year?
____less than $25,000
____$25,001-50,000
____$50,001-75,000
____$75,001-100,000
____$100,001-150,000
____Over $150,000!

17. Please select your two strongest barriers to academic success:
___Work constraints ___Culture shock ___Family issues
___Language difficulties ___Financial issues ___Military
___Academic struggles ___Lack of support network
___Racism/Discrimination ___Other opportunities outside of school
___Physical health concerns ___Mental health concerns

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 102

Appendix C
Academic Advising Inventory
Winston and Sandor (1984)

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 103

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 104

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 105

PART III

Considering the academic advising you have participated in at this college this year, respond to
the following five statements using the code below.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree
4 = Somewhat Agree 5 = Agree 6 = Strongly Agree

45. I am satisfied in general with the academic advising I have received.
46. I have received accurate information about courses, programs, and requirements through academic advising.
47. Sufficient prior notice has been provided about deadlines related to institutional polices and procedures.
48. Advising has been available when I needed it.
49. Sufficient time has been available during advising sessions.
ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 106

Appendix D
Supplemental Advising Questions

1. Which of the following best describes the majority of the academic advising you have
received over the past 12 months?
Select only one.
(a) Advised individually by assigned advisor
(b) Advised individually by any available advisor
(c) Advised individually by a faculty member
(d) Advised with a group of students
(e) Advised by a peer (student) advisor
(f) Advised in conjunction with a course in which I was enrolled
(g) Advised in a manner other than the alternatives described above Explain:
(h) No advising received

2. I have had ___ one-on-one meetings (in person or video conference) with my advisor
over the past 12 months.

3. Approximately how much time was generally spent in each advising session?
(a) less than 15 minutes (c) 31-45 minutes (e) more than 1 hour
(b) 15-30 minutes (d) 46-60 minutes (f) not applicable

4. I have had contact via phone or email with my advisor ___ times over the past 12 months.
(not including mass emails your advisor sends to all of his/her students)

5. I have attended ____ group advising sessions over the past 12 months.

6. I would rate my overall effort as an advisee as (select only one):
(a) Poor (b) Acceptable (c) Good (d) Excellent

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 107

_______________________________

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree
4 = Somewhat Agree 5 = Agree 6 = Strongly Agree

7. My academic advisor is familiar with my cultural background.

8. My academic advisor asks about my home country.

9. My academic advisor asks about my family.

10. My academic advisor understands me when we talk.

11. My academic advisor and I discuss cultural similarities and/or differences between the
U.S. and my home culture.

12. My academic advisor shares his or her advising philosophy with me.

13. My academic advisor comes prepared for our meeting(s).

14. I am comfortable sharing information about myself with my academic advisor.

15. My academic advisor treats me unfavorably because of my international status.

16. I would recommend my academic advisor to other students.

17. Academic advisors provide a useful service.
_______________________________

18. Please elaborate on any of your answers above and/or provide your overall impression of
the academic advising you have received:

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 108

Appendix E
Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale
Stephenson (2000)

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 109

Appendix F
Sense of Belonging to Campus
Hurtado and Carter (1997) & Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005)

Instructions: Use the scale below to answer the following questions. Please indicate the number
that best represents your view on each item.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. I see myself as a part of the university community.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. I feel that I am a member of the university community.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. I feel a sense of belonging to the university community.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. I am enthusiastic about this university.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. If asked, I would recommend this university to others.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ADVISING INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES 110

Appendix G
Intent to Persist

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree
4 = Somewhat Agree 5 = Agree 6 = Strongly Agree

1. I will continue to take courses at [university name] until I earn a degree.
2. I have thoughts about leaving [university name] prior to earning my degree.
3. I intend to earn a degree from [university name].
4. Sometimes I think about dropping out.
5. It is likely that I will re-enroll at [university name] next semester. (If you are graduating
after this semester, leave blank)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome

PDF

Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers

Asset Metadata

Creator Mataczynski, Lisa (author)

Core Title Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2013

Defense Date 03/11/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic advising,acculturation,Higher education,international students,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,retention,Satisfaction,sense of belonging,undergraduates

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member), Wu, Maryann (committee member)

Creator Email lisa.mataczynski@gmail.com,mataczyn@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-237853

Unique identifier UC11293503

Identifier etd-Mataczynsk-1557.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-237853 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mataczynsk-1557.pdf

Dmrecord 237853

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mataczynski, Lisa

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA