University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 1
THE IMPACT OF STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION ON UNDERGRADUATE
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC OUTCOME

by

Doris S. Mok

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

December 2013

Copyright 2013 Doris S. Mok

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 4

Abstract 5

Chapter One: Introduction 6
Statement of Purpose 6
Impact of Student-Faculty Interaction 8
Purpose of Study 10
Research Questions 10
Conceptual and Analytical Framework 11
Data Source 11
Statistical Analyses: Single Variable Descriptive Analyses 13

Chapter Two: Literature Review 14
International Students in United States 14
Research Literature on International Students 16
Theoretical Frameworks of Adaptation/Adjustment 18
Acculturation/Acculturative Stress Model 20
Empirical Studies on International Students 22
Literature summary and critique 33
International Students’ Interaction with Faculty 34
Faculty Engagement Studies 40
Gender (Male/Female) and Ethnic/Racial Differences in Student-Faculty Interaction 45
Qualitative Aspects of Student-Faculty Interaction 51
Implications for International Students 55
Studies on International Students’ Interaction with Faculty 55
Faculty Perspectives on International Students 58

Chapter Three: Methods 61
The Input–Environment-Outcome Model 61
The Model 62
Correlations of Measures and Analysis of Data 64
CIRP Survey Measures 65
Applying the I-E-O Model to International Students 66
Research Questions 68
Data 68
Variables Selected 69
Statistical Analyses 70
Figure 1. The Input-Environment-Outcome Model for International Students 71
Single Variable Descriptive Analyses 72

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 3
Chapter Four: Results 73
Student Sample Characteristics 73
Institution Sample 75
Student Input Characteristics 77
Student-Faculty Interaction 79
Factor Analysis 79
Reliability Analysis 81
Outcome Variables 81
Regression Analysis 83

Chapter Five: Discussion 98
The International Student Sample 98
Student Input Characteristics 99
Student-Faculty Interaction 100
International Student Adaptation 102
Impact on Academic Outcome 105
Limitations of the Present Study 108
Implications for Future Research 109
Implications for Student Service Professionals 111
Conclusion 114

References 115

Appendix 128

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 4
List of Tables
Table 1: International Students’ Demographic Characteristics 74

Table 2: International Students’ Distribution of States 75

Table 3: Type of Institutions Attended 76

Table 4: International Student Pre-Entry Input Characteristics 78

Table 5: Student-Faculty Interaction 79

Table 6: Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation
on Student-Faculty interaction items 81

Table 7: Adaptation, Success and Satisfaction Variables 83

Table 8: Factors Associated with Acculturative Stress 85

Table 9: Factors Associated with Student Success 87

Table 10: Factors Associated with College GPA (Demographic Variables, Pre-entry
Characteristics and Student-Faculty Interaction Variables) 89

Table 11: Factors Associated with Self-Rating of Academic Ability (Demographic
Variables, Pre-entry Characteristics and Student-Faculty Interaction Variables) 91

Table 12: Factors Associated with Intellectual Self-Confidence (Demographic Variables,
Pre-entry Characteristics and Student-Faculty Interaction Variables) 93

Table 13: Factors (Demographic Characteristics, Input Characteristics, Student-Faculty
Interaction, and Student Success) Associated with College GPA 95

Table 14: Student-Faculty Interaction Factors Associated with Student Outcomes 97

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 5
Abstract
International students constituted 3.4 to 3.6% of the total student population in U.S.
degree-granting institutions (NCES, 2008). Research efforts on this population have been
divergent and disparate, thus findings cannot be systematized for theoretical consistency
(Pedersen, 1991). Student interaction with faculty has been identified as one of the strongest
factors relating to student persistence (Tinto, 1997), student satisfaction and other positive
educational outcomes (Astin, 1999). Guided by Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Outcome
Model, this quantitative study utilized data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program
(CIRP) to explore how international students’ interaction with faculty impacted their academic
outcomes. Results indicated that international students interacted with faculty frequently. These
interactions had significant impact on international students’ academic outcome (College GPA,
self-perceived academic ability and intellectual self-confidence), success and satisfaction.
Regression analyses identified that getting encouragement for graduate school and receiving a
letter of recommendation from faculty were consistently a factor associated with positive
academic outcomes and student satisfaction. In addition, advice about education program,
opportunity to discuss coursework outside class and opportunities to apply learning in the real
world were factors associated with student success. Faculty and student service professionals
should become aware of international students’ unique needs and challenges and facilitate
positive student-faculty interaction for this population.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 6
Chapter One: Introduction
Statement of Purpose
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center of Education Statistics
(NCES, 2008), international students (or nonresident aliens) constituted 3.3 to 3.6% of the total
student population in degree-granting institutions during the years 2000 to 2005. Data from Open
Doors 2007: Report on International Educational Exchange, collected by the Institute of
International Education (IIE), indicate that the number of international students enrolled in U.S.
higher education institutions during 2006 to 2007 reached 582,984 (IIE, 2007). The United States
continues to be the top host country of international students, attracting about 30% of students
from different countries who seek education abroad (Chow & Marcus, 2007). Despite the steady
presence of international students in our higher education system, research literature is often
silent on the subject (Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005).
A preliminary literature search using the ERIC database and the PSYCINFO database,
two common databases for education-related and psychology-related literature, was conducted.
Keywords and phrases such as “international students” and “foreign students” were used to
identify relevant literature. A review of abstracts from the ERIC database indicated a striking
dearth of literature on international students from the student development perspective. Whereas
extensive literature exists on student development, few of these studies address international
students, posing a challenge to understanding student development issues relevant to this
particular population. A quick review of the titles and abstracts of items from the PSYCINFO
database indicates that most of the literature is on adjustment/adaptation, acculturation, cultural
issues, coping, social relationships, identity, self-efficacy, and counseling issues. Items from the
psychology literature tend to focus on adjustment and mental health issues, primarily from a
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 7
deficit/psychopathology model. Items from the ERIC database are diverse, and include learning
and educational topics such as curriculum, programs, college performance, education attainment,
language, and discipline-specific issues such as English-as-a-second-language. Although varied,
the education literature follows a similar trend: items on English-as-Second-Language (ESL) and
learning literature tend to highlight language deficiencies impacting education outcome.
Pedersen (1991) has noted that research efforts on international students are “varied,
divergent and unrelated in its approach that it is difficult to develop any theoretical consistency
among the research results” (p.14). Few comprehensive theories have been developed or
appropriately applied to understanding the international student population. When theoretical
constructs have been applied, scholars often question their relevance to the international student
experiences. To date, the theories most pertinent to international students focus on cultural
adaptation and adjustment. Examining international student development during their college
years necessitates an exploration of their adaptation and adjustment process—often described as
acculturation. Nevertheless, an overemphasis on adaptation and adjustment may, in fact, lead
researchers to overlook international students’ development during the college years.
A review of theories on acculturation, and empirical data on international students’
adaptation and adjustment, indicates that research studies primarily focus on the individual
characteristics of the international student, such as demographic characteristics (Adelegan &
Parks, 1985; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006; Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, Al-Timimi, & Nada,
2004; Schram & Laurer, 1988; Surdam & Collins, 1984) and student competencies and language
skills (Chen, 1988; Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora, McPherson, & Pisecco, 2002; Surdam & Collins,
1984). Contact with the host culture and social interaction with local students are considered key
to adaptation and adjustment; however, responsibility for making contact and developing social
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 8
networks is still largely placed on international students themselves. Few studies consider or
explore campus/environmental contexts and other host culture factors. Whereas some studies
have focused on peer involvement, few take into consideration the impact that interaction with
faculty has on international students.
Leong and Sedlacek (1986) compared the preferences of international and U.S. freshmen
in terms of support resources, and found that international students preferred a faculty
advisor/member for educational-vocational problems and parents or older friends for emotional-
social problems; domestic students favored seeking a student-friend or older friend for both types
of problems. These findings provide preliminary indications that faculty support or interaction
with faculty may be more important for international students than for domestic students.
Because international students’ primary purpose for staying in the US is to pursue academic
studies, it seems only logical that faculty members play an important role in helping international
students adjust to the academic system and to college life in general. Research on international
students’ relationships and interaction with faculty is therefore necessary.
Impact of Student-Faculty Interaction
The impact of student-faculty interaction on student development and outcome has been
well documented in the research literature since the 1960s. Indeed, it is a central component in
college impact theories, such as Astin’s (1984, 1985) Student Involvement Theory, Kuh and
colleagues’ Student Engagement Theory (Kuh et al., 1991; Kuh et al., 1989), and Tinto’s
theories on student departure (1987) and student persistence (1997). Scholars have studied
student-faculty interaction both inside and outside of the classroom.
Few of the earlier studies on student-faculty interaction provided disaggregated data
based on gender (male/female) and race. In the late 1990s to 2000s, however, research studies
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 9
began to explore the differential impacts of student-faculty interaction on women (Hagedorn,
Maxwell et al., 2000; Sax, Bryant, & Harper, 2005) and ethnic minorities (Anaya & Cole, 2001;
Chang, 2005; Cole, 2007; Cole & Griffin, 2013; NSSE, 2001; Santos & Reigadas, 2000; Stith &
Russell, 1994). These studies also examined relevant interracial dynamics (Cole, 2007) and
issues of differential treatment and discrimination that pertain not only to ethnic minority
students but also to international students.
To date, few studies have explicitly examined student-faculty interaction among
international students. One quantitative study conducted by Zhao et al. (2005) utilized data from
the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and found that international students scored
higher than domestic students on all levels of academic engagement. First-year international
students reported higher levels of student-faculty interaction and greater gains in personal and
social development as well as in general education than domestic students. Toward their senior
year, international students’ interaction pattern were more similar to domestic students but
continued to report greater gains in all areas. Zhao et al.’s (2005) study examined student
engagement in general, and therefore did not contribute findings about the specific dynamics of
student-faculty interaction. Nevertheless, their study was the first to utilize national higher
education survey data to investigate international students. A handful of studies have
investigated qualitative aspects of international graduate students’ perspectives on interactions
with faculty (Beykont & Daiute, 2002; Faitma, 2001). These pioneer studies, though using only
small-scale and convenience samples, indicate preliminary differences between domestic and
international students’ interaction with faculty as well as within-group differences.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 10
Purpose of Study
This study attempts to redress a gap in the research literature relevant to the student-
faculty interaction of international students, particularly as these exchanges impact academic
outcome. Two bodies of research literature guide the current study: relevant literature on student
development issues among international students, and literature on student-faculty interaction.
The research literature on international student development provides the background for issues
relevant to international students’ development during the college years. Most notably,
international students’ adaptation/adjustment and acculturation provide the contextual framework
for understanding student development issues during their college education careers. Research
literature concerned with student-faculty interaction provides the theoretical framework that
guides the current study’s methodological design.
This study seeks to understand undergraduate international students from a development
perspective. It utilizes large-scale national survey data to examine international students in the
US. The study examines the characteristics of student-faculty interactions among international
students and the impact on international students’ education outcome. International students’
adaptation and adjustment are conceptualized as an intermediate outcome variable in this study.
Research Questions
The key research question is: How does interaction with faculty impact the academic
outcome of undergraduate international students? There are three research sub-questions: (a)
How do international students interact with faculty, and what are the frequencies and types of
contact? (b) How does student-faculty interaction impact international students’ adaptation? (c)
How does student-faculty interaction impact international students’ academic outcome?

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 11
Conceptual and Analytical Framework
The conceptual framework for the study follows Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-
Outcome Model, which allows for controlling of input characteristics of international students so
as to examine the impact of a primary environmental variable— student-faculty interaction—on
the academic outcome of students. Astin’s (2002) model provides the statistical analytical
framework, which includes (a) single variable descriptive analyses, (b) cross-tabulation and
correlation to describe relationships between variables, (c) three-way tabulation to include input,
environment, and output component, (d) correlation and regression analyses to explore
relationships, and (e) examination of interaction effects (input-environment, input-input,
environment-environment). The statistical analysis framework has been used in many research
studies in higher education. Research studies using the I-E-O framework to examine the impact
of student-faculty interaction are reviewed in the next chapter. The current study’s methodology
is guided by these studies.
Data Source
The data source will be from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), to
be accessed through the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at University of California,
Los Angeles. The longitudinal nature of the dataset allows for the examination of input,
environment, and outcome variables from a nationally representative sample of international
students. Student data are collected from the Freshman Survey in 2000 and the College Senior
Survey in 2004. The Freshman Survey covers a wide range of student input characteristics, such
as demographic information, secondary school achievement activities, education and career plans,
college expectations, student values, attitudes, beliefs, and self-concept. The College Senior
Survey is an exit survey that primarily assesses outcome and academic life experiences. The
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 12
Faculty Survey 2004 assesses faculty attitudes, experiences, satisfaction, teaching practices, and
professional activities, thus providing an additional perspective on the institution.
Input characteristics of international students from the Freshman Survey examined in this
study include (a) demographic information, such as gender (male/female), race/ethnicity, native
English speaker, religion, and parental education; (b) academic information, such as high school
GPA, SAT scores, and self-assessment of academic ability, (c) self-reported psychological well-
being, such as feelings of depression and of being overwhelmed, and (d) student-teacher
interaction during secondary school. The College Senior Survey provides data on the
international students’ education experience as well as on outcome variables.
Variables derived from the College Senior Survey include environmental and outcome
variables. Student-faculty interaction is conceptualized as a college experience variable and
consists of 13 items on student-faculty interaction from the survey. Adaptation is conceptualized
as an intermediate outcome variable indicating international students’ adjustment and adaptation,
and consists of two components: positive success variables indicative of overall college
adaptation and the presence or absence of acculturative stress (depressed, overwhelmed, and
lonely/homesick), which in turn impacts academic outcome and success. Academic outcome
variables include college GPA, GRE scores, self-assessment of academic ability and intellectual
self-confidence.
Institutional environment variables include institutional size, selectivity, student and
faculty diversity, and faculty participation of scholarship in global / international student issues.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 13
Statistical Analyses: Single Variable Descriptive Analyses
Sample characteristics. Demographic characteristics of the sample, such as gender
(male/female), race/ethnicity, marital status, native English speaker, religion and parental
education would be summarized and presented as single variable descriptive analyses.
Factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis would be conducted to identify factor
clusters from the 13 student-faculty interaction variables. A scale score would be developed
from the 13 variables and examined with the Cronbach alpha (α) level. Factors identified would
be used in the block regression analyses to reduce the number of variables used.
Regression analyses. Block regression analyses would be conducted to examine
relationships between input, environmental and outcome variables. The first series of analyses
examine adaptation as an intermediate outcome variable. Input characteristics are entered as
blocks: demographic characteristics, academic characteristics, psychological well-being, and
prior interaction with teachers. Student-faculty interaction variables would then be entered.
Adaptation variables are entered as the dependent/outcome variables. The second series of
regression analyses examine academic outcome as a dependent variable and identify the student-
faculty interaction variables that may be unique factors associated with international student
academic outcome.
Currently there is a dearth of literature on international student interaction with faculty. In
chapter two, the literature review begins with a review of research studies on international
students, followed by studies on student-faculty interaction. Chapter three describes the
methodology of the current study. Findings of the study are reported in chapter four and then
discussed in chapter five.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Two bodies of research guide the current study: literature on student development issues
among international students, and literature on student-faculty interaction. This chapter begins
with an overview of international students in the US, which is followed by a synopsis of the
relevant research literature on international student development issues with a special emphasis
on cultural adjustment/adaptation/acculturation. The literature on student-faculty interaction will
then be presented. Given the dearth of literature on international student interaction with faculty,
this review of the literature expands to related studies that may shed light on the experiences of
international students. Moreover, this review focuses on quantitative studies based on Astin’s
(1991) Input-Environment-Outcome framework and those utilizing data from the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program (CIRP), both studies that guide the current study’s
methodological design.
International Students in United States
According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics
(NCES, 2008), international students (or nonresident aliens) constituted 3.3 to 3.6% of the total
student population in degree-granting institutions during the years 2000 to 2005. Data from Open
Doors 2007: Report on International Educational Exchange, collected annually by the Institute
of International Education (IIE), indicate that the number of international students enrolled in
U.S. higher education institutions during 2006 to 2007 reached 582,984, a 3% increase from the
previous academic year, and the first significant increase in total international student enrollment
since 2001–2002 (IIE, 2007). The United States continues to be the top host country of
international students, attracting about 30% of students seeking education abroad; other favorite
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 15
destinations are Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom
(Chow & Marcus, 2007).
Asian students constitute 59% of the total international enrollment in the US. The top five
countries of origin are India (14.4%), China (11.6%), Korea (10.7%), Japan (6.1%), and Taiwan
(5.0%), followed by Canada (4.9%), Mexico (2.4%) and Turkey (2.0%). Other countries each
constitute less than 2% of the total international student population (IIE, 2007). Based on the
above statistics, it is observed that “Asian” students would be too broad a category subsuming
students from diverse national origins and cultural background. It is important to identify the
international students’ country of origin. In 2006–2007, 45% of international students were
graduate students, 41% were undergraduate students, and 14% were nondegree/certificate
students. Geographically, international student enrollment tends to be highly concentrated in
certain states, such as California and New York, and institutions. Students usually cluster in
areas with a large student or immigrant population from their home country (Chow & Marcus,
2007).
The leading field of study among international students has been business and
management (18% of international students), followed by engineering (15% of international
students) (Chow & Marcus, 2007). According to U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century (National
Science Foundation, 2006), a significant portion of doctorate recipients is foreign nationals.
During the years 1995 to 1999, 22.9% of all doctorate recipients were foreign nationals on
temporary visa. The portion is much higher for science and engineering fields, reaching 44% in
agricultural sciences and engineering. Whereas international students constitute only about 3% of
total enrollment in degree-granting institutions, their presence in doctoral-level education and
their contributions to research in science and engineering should not be overlooked.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 16
Research Literature on International Students
Preliminary literature search. A preliminary literature search using ERIC database and
PSYCINFO database, the two common databases for education-related and psychology-related
literature, was conducted. Keywords-phrases such as “international students,” “foreign students,”
were used to identify relevant literature. A quick review of the title and abstracts of items from
PSYCINFO database indicates that most of the literature are on adjustment/adaptation,
acculturation, cultural issues, coping, social relationships, identity, mental health and counseling
issues. It appears that items from the psychology literature tend to focus on adjustment and
mental health issues primarily from a deficit / psychopathology model. Items from ERIC
database are varied. In addition to the common themes mentioned before, they also include
learning and educational topics such as curriculum, programs, college performance, education
attainment, language and discipline-specific issues such as English-as-a-second-language. While
the education literature is varied, it follows a similar trend; items on English-as-Second-
Language (ESL) and learning literature also highlight language deficiencies. The literature on
international students almost exclusively focuses on the characteristics of the international
student, overlooking the campus environment, learning environment, and host factors that are
favorable to international students’ growth and development.
A review of the abstracts available in databases indicates a marked dearth of literature on
international students from the student development perspective. Whereas extensive higher
education literature attends to student development, very little of it includes international
students. Keywords relevant to student development theories (author, name of theory, and
theoretical concepts, etc.) were employed to conduct a detailed literature search on specific
theories applied to international students. However, this search again yielded only a handful of
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 17
studies explicitly applying developmental theories and college impact theories to international
students.
Notably, international students are often not included as a diversity category in the
American higher education system. An example would be the absence of international students
in the Association of the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Reader series. Neither the ASHE
Reader on College Student Development Theory (2005) nor the ASHE Reader on Racial and
Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education (1995) includes international students. The absence of
international students in the ASHE Reader series reflects current research literature, posing a
challenge to understanding student development issues relevant to this population. Another
example would be the absence of international students in major national surveys in higher
education. Of the three student surveys published by Cooperative Institutional Research Program,
Higher Education Research Institute (n.d.) (i.e., the CIRP Freshman Survey, the Your First
College Year Survey (YFCY) and the College Senior Survey [CSS]), only the Freshman Survey
asks students to identify citizenship status with three choices: “1) U.S. citizen, 2) Permanent
Residence/Green card and 3) Neither.” The two paper surveys published by The College Student
Experiences Questionnaire Research Program (2005), the College Student Expectation
Questionnaire (CSXQ) and the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), also do not
inquire whether students are international. Students are usually asked to report only their
racial/ethnic identification—not their possible status as an international student. The
international student identity is frequently subsumed into racial categories in United States—that
is, a Nigerian international student is likely to be counted as “African-American/Black” rather
than Nigerian. The exception is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, n.d.), which
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 18
formally inquires students about their international status. To date, only one published study on
international students has been based on data from this survey (Zhao et al., 2005).
The replacement of national identity with race-based identity on national research studies
and other data collection in higher education institutions reflects the challenge international
students encounter during their years in the US. First, due to their small numbers on campus,
their status as “international students” may not be routinely inquired in data collection, resulting
in their absence in campus studies and the research literature. Second, campuses and higher
education literature often absorb the national identity of international students into a catchall of
“international students.” Third, a racial identity, such as Black, Asian, White, and so forth
(instead of Jamaican, Indian, or French) may be assigned or imposed on international students,
following the U.S. Census racial coding systems. However, these racial identity labels may have
little meaning for international students. Research literature on international students also tends
to study them as a distinct group based on the international status, sometimes noting their race
categories, but usually disregarding their national origin.
Another reason for the dearth of student development literature on international students
may be a scholarly overemphasis on adaptation, adjustment, and acculturation issues, which have
been overarching themes in the research literature on international students. The review begins
with the theoretical frameworks of understanding adjustment, adaptation and acculturation of
international students, followed by a summary of empirical studies. Issues relevant to interaction
with faculty and international students’ college outcome are highlighted.
Theoretical Frameworks of Adaptation/Adjustment
Research efforts on international students are hardly systematic, as Pedersen (1991) has
noted; indeed, they are “so varied, divergent and unrelated in [their] approach that it is difficult
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 19
to develop any theoretical consistency among the research results” (p. 14). Few comprehensive
theories have been developed or appropriately applied to understanding the international student
population. To date, the theories most pertinent to international students have focused on cultural
adaptation and adjustment.
Zhou, Jindal-Snape, Topping, and Todman (2008) reviewed theoretical models of
cultural shock and adaptation as applied to international students. The authors noted that
traditional perspectives on migration and mental health have influenced studies of international
students, thereby highlighting negative aspects of the cultural encounter. In their work, three
major models or frameworks were identified: the cultural learning model, the stress and coping
model, and the social identity models. Furnam and Bochner (1986, cited by Zhou et al., 2008),
strong advocates of the cultural learning model, have described cultural shock as a psychological
reaction to an unfamiliar environment. The “shock” becomes the stimulus for the acquisition of
new skills relevant to the new culture. Adaptation in this framework is affected by variables such
as general knowledge about the new culture, length of residence in the host culture, language or
communication competence, quantity and quality of contact with host nationals, friendship
networks, previous experience abroad, cultural distance, cross-cultural training, and so on.
According to Zhou et al.’s (2008) analysis, the cultural learning model focuses on the behavioral
component that leads to training models. The second model Zhou et al. (2008) have described
was the stress and coping model, which focuses on the affective component. Variables most
relevant to this model are degree of life changes/stressful events, personality factors, and
situational factors, such as social support. The social identity model was the third model
described by Zhou et al. (2008), and focused on the cognitive aspects; this framework includes
acculturation models and social identity models. Uni-dimensional conceptualization of
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 20
acculturation implies assimilation to the dominant culture. Bi-dimensional conceptualization of
acculturation focuses on a bi-cultural identity and a process of mediation. Categorical
conceptualization of acculturation, such as Berry’s (1997) acculturation model, is more complex
and addresses both the host and sojourners. Lastly, the social identity model considers how group
membership affects individual identity. These studies focus on social comparison and self-
esteem, group membership, perceptions and interactions (Zhou et al., 2008).
Acculturation/Acculturative Stress Model
Berry’s (1997, 1999, 2001) acculturation model originated in cultural anthropology, and
refers to the process of cultural change resulting from a group-level encounter between two or
more cultures. Whereas acculturation refers to contact between two cultural groups, studies often
focus on the nondominant group, neglecting the dominant group, because the contact experience
is likely to have more implications for the former (Berry, 2001). The model attempts to
understand between-group intercultural relations, ranging from conflict/stressful for members to
mutual adaptation. The model has been applied to studies of aborigine/minority groups coming
into contact with the dominant culture, refugees, immigrants, and temporary sojourners such as
international students. The acculturation model includes two dimensions: contact and identity.
When two groups come into contact, the nondominant group utilizes four strategies: assimilation,
separation, marginalization, and integration. Assimilation refers to seeking contact without
maintaining one’s identity. Separation refers to avoiding contact with the host and maintaining
only one’s home culture identity. Integration refers to one who seeks contact from cultural
groups and maintains one’s identity. Marginalization refers to those who are not successful in
seeking contact and do not identify with either home or host cultures. This model takes into
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 21
consideration individual characteristics (gender [male/female], age, past experiences), group
characteristics (sojourners vs. immigrants), and societal context (valuing pluralism or not).
Berry’s (1997) model describes psychological acculturation as psychological changes at
the individual level. His model also includes the study of acculturative stress, described as “a
reduction in the health status of individuals, and may include physical, psychological and social
aspects . . . . related in a systematic way to known features of the acculturation process” (Berry,
Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1986, p. 493). The symptoms include lower mental health status
(depression, anxiety, and confusion), feelings of marginality and alienation, psychosomatic
symptoms, and identity confusion. This concept has been broadly applied to immigrants,
refugees, aborigines, and international students.
Following the acculturative stress model, Sandhu and Asrabadi (1994) formulated an
Acculturative Stress Scale for International Student (ASSIS). The scale was developed by
identifying relevant themes through both a review of the literature and interviews with
international students. Six factors were extracted from the 36-item Likert Scale: perceived
discrimination, homesickness, perceived hatred, fear, guilt, and stress due to change (culture
shock). One critique of the instrument is that it is unclear whether the authors intend to use it as a
mental health assessment measure. Careful examination of the items included in the scale
indicates that the scale does not distinguish between stressors (external events) and stress
experiences. It also neglects campus environmental factors that may be valid external realities for
international students.
Robinson and Sandhu (2007) summarized and synthesized research studies on isolation,
adjustment, and acculturation issues of international students and offered intervention strategies
in counseling. The authors employed several categories: sense of loss and homesickness,
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 22
loneliness and social isolation, identity and values of confusion, discrimination and prejudice,
uncertainty, fear and anxiety, somatic complaints, cognitive distress, sadness and depression, and
symptom severity. Because a significant portion of the literature on international students is on
adjustment and mental health/counseling issues, the concept of “acculturative stress” has
generated a number of empirical studies on international students. However, measures of
acculturative stress vary in these studies, ranging from formal clinical assessment instruments
assessing depression and anxiety to a few simple Likert-type self-rating questions on a survey.
Zhou et al. (2008) suggested that the study of international students’ cultural adaptation
derives from the migration and mental health model, thus following a psychopathological
perspective. Yoon and Portman (2004) reviewed literature concerned with counseling
international students, using a critique focused on a pathological rather than developmental
perspective. The following section summarizes empirical studies on international students’
adaptation, adjustment, and acculturation. Although it is, indeed, a challenge to organize and
synthesize the literature that is divergent and unsystematic (Pedersen, 1991), an attempt is made
to identify both positive and negative indicators of adjustment and adaptation as well as relevant
implications on international students’ developmental outcome.
Empirical Studies on International Students
Student characteristics: Demographics. Demographic characteristics of international
students, such as race/ethnicity, age, marital status, and undergraduate/graduate status, and their
impact on adjustment has been explored. A number of studies have indicated that European or
White students generally have better adjustment status than Asian and African students (Poyrazli
et al., 2004; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006; Schram & Laurer, 1988). Within racial group (Asians,
Africans) differences are also acknowledged. Perkins et al. (1977) examined 270 Asian (Chinese
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 23
and Indian) international students’ adjustment problems and recognized the various demographic
differences within this group. Two studies focused on African international students (Adelegan
& Parks, 1985; Surdam & Collins, 1984). Adelegan and Parks (1985) examined 33 Black East
African, Black West African, and Arabic North African international students, using key
demographic variables to predict how students transition to university life. The authors found
that older, married, and Black students expressed more difficulty with transitions.
In summary, data supports that race/ethnicity impacts adjustment. However, this cause
and effect has subset issues to it as well. Degree of adjustment success may be associated with
language abilities. Ethnic/racial constitution on campus may also impact international students’
adjustment on campus. Klomegah (2006) examined international students in a historically
minority-serving college through a survey sent to 51 international students and 43 local students.
Contingency tables and statistical measures of association indicated that only social contact was
associated with alienation when gender (male/female) and age were held constant with no
difference between international students and American students. Klomegah (2006) hypothesized
that the phenotypic characteristics shared by African students with their hosts might have
facilitated adjustment.
Other demographic characteristics frequently examined include age, marital status, and
undergraduate/graduate student status. Findings on their impact on adjustment are mixed.
Adelegan and Parks’s (1985) study of African students found that older married students have
more difficulty with the transition. In their study of 266 international students using
questionnaire data that included demographic questions, the Social Contact Scale and the
University Alienation Scale, Schram and Laurer’s (1988) found graduate student were less likely
than undergraduate student to be associated with alienation. In another study, Huntley (1993)
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 24
compared undergraduate and graduate students, reporting them to be similar in adjustment.
However, she also found that adult students could be less flexible than younger students in such
issues as food tolerance. Poyrazli and Kavanaugh (2006) assessed the relationship of marital
status, ethnicity, and academic achievement with adjustment experienced by international
graduate students. Participants were 149 students from five universities. Correlational and
multiple regression analyses indicated that married international students experienced lower
levels of social adjustment strain than did single students.
Length of stay has also been a key characteristics examined by scholars. Surdam and
Collins (1984) administered a survey to collect biographical, social, cultural, academic, and
financial data from 101 male and 42 female Africans students from 35 countries. They identified
a U-curve hypothesis; those who had been in the US for two to four years were not as adaptive as
those who were new to the US or those who had been in the US for more than four years. Other
student characteristics associated with better adaptation included having well-educated parents
and positive religious attitudes.
In summary, studies examining demographic characteristics consistently support
racial/ethnic differences in adjustment. Coming from studies with small and convenient samples
of international students, findings on age, marital status, undergraduate/graduate status, and
parental education are not conclusive.
Students’ skills and competencies. Student competencies have been identified as a key
factor in international student adaptation. These competencies include language competencies,
cultural competencies, communication skills, and academic self-efficacies. Chen (1988)
examined 149 international students from several continents studying at a large Midwestern
university to determine which measures best predicted the seven dimensions of the Intercultural
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 25
Behavioral Assessment Indices. Students completed questionnaires assessing four aspects of
intercultural communication competence: personal attributes, communication skills,
psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness. Results revealed significant correlations
among the four aspects of intercultural communication.
Boyer and Sedlacek (1988) used the Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ) to predict
college grades and retention of 248 international students among entering freshman in a state
university. The NCQ is a twenty-three-item questionnaire with eighteen Likert-type questions
about college expectations and self-assessment. It has been used for U.S. ethnic minority
students, assessing eight noncognitive dimensions: (a) self-confidence, (b) realistic self-
expectations, (c) community service or involvement in local community, (d) knowledge acquired
in a field in nontraditional ways, (e) successful leadership experiences, (f) preference for long-
range goals over short-term, immediate ones, (g) ability to understand and cope with racism, and
(h) availability of a strong support person. Results from this longitudinal study indicated that
these noncognitive factors also predicted persistence and grades for international students across
the eight semesters. Self-confidence and the availability of a strong support person predicted
grade point average, whereas more variables or aggregates of variables were related to
persistence. Community service and understanding racism were the most consistent variables
associated with persistence. Boyer and Sedlacek’s (1988) study is one of the very few studies
that adopts a longitudinal perspective, tracking students across eight semesters. The noncognitive
factors included student attributes, such as self-confidence and realistic self-expectations, as well
as student involvement in the environment such as participation in community service.
Surdam and Collins’s (1988) study of African American students found that English
language abilities on arrival predicted better adjustment. Nicholas (2001) examined the
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 26
adjustment of Asian students in West Michigan University by interviewing 10 students who
completed a 22-item interview questionnaire. The author concluded that the primary difficulty
arose from English language proficiency, which contributed to both academic and social
difficulties. Recommendations for faculty included understanding international students’ needs
and providing support. Whereas this study also focused on student competencies, careful review
of the interview responses revealed some incidents of discrimination by instructors and
classmates due to these language barriers. The study indicated the importance of examining how
language barriers may impact international students’ interaction with faculty. Faculty’s
perception and understanding of international students’ language challenges may also be
noteworthy.
Poyrazli et al. (2002) studied the relationship between assertiveness (using the Rathus
Assertive Schedule), academic self-efficacy (using the Academic Self Efficacy Scale), and
psychosocial adjustment (using The Inventory of Student Adjustment Strain, UCLA Loneliness
Scale) among 122 international graduate students. Results indicated that English proficiency,
assertiveness, and academic self-efficacy contributed to students’ general adjustment.
In summary, research studies indicate that international students’ competencies,
confidence, and self-efficacies are predictive of adjustment. English language skills appear to be
one of the most important competencies.
Sources of challenges. Research studies on international students also examine the
sources of challenges or barriers to adaption and adjustment. For example, Feng (1991)
examined international students from the People’s Republic of China at a southern university.
Data were gathered through participant observation, unstructured interviews, and semi-structured
interviews to examine their adaptation. Four principal areas concerning Chinese students'
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 27
adaptation and adjustment were identified: financial difficulty, academic difficulties, cultural
differences, and language difficulties. Feng (1991) cautioned university personnel and
international student service professionals to understand international students’ common
adaptation problems as well as the unique difficulties of the cultural/national groups. Huntley
(1993) found that international graduate students were similar to international undergraduate
students. Language barriers, academic performance, social adjustment, and adjustment to support
services were common challenges.
Poyrazli and Grahame (2007) conducted a qualitative study using focus groups to
examine the adjustment needs of international students following an ecological framework. Data
revealed that students need more support during the initial transition, when they encounter
various barriers related to academic life, health insurance, living arrangements, social interaction,
transportation, and discrimination. Brown (2008) conducted an ethnographic study of adaptation
on international graduate students in the United Kingdom. Through participant observations of
an entire cohort of 150 master’s students and individual interviews with 13 students, the study
explored their academic challenges. Issues identified included academic cultural differences,
such as learning resources, essay writing and referencing, critical evaluation, and participation in
class discussions. Language ability was identified as another major source of stress.
In summary, challenges to international students included language difficulties— which
impact social and academic adjustment—financial troubles, access to services, and other
practical daily living adjustments. Although the studies identified the sources of the challenges
that students encountered, few studies examined the campus support services made available to
international students to facilitate their adjustment to those challenges.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 28
Social interaction with host culture. Theories on cultural adaptation and empirical
findings have repeatedly confirmed the important role played by social support. Following the
acculturation model, the majority of studies focus on the impact that interaction with the host
culture has on international students’ adaptation. Boyd and Sedlacek (1998) reported that
community services or involvement in the local community is important to international students’
persistence.
In another study, Ramsay, Jones, Barker, and Michelle (2007) studied 195 local and 85
first-year international students in an Australian university. The purpose was to examine the
relationship between adjustment and four support types (emotional, practical, information, and
social companionship), support sources, levels of support, and satisfaction with support.
International students reported lower levels of perceived adjustment when compared to local
students. Among well-adjusted students, international students reported higher levels of social
companionship support, and local students reported higher levels of emotional support.
International students reported that they would like to receive more emotional, practical, and
informational support. International students perceived relationships with campus professionals
to be an important source of support.
Other studies following an acculturation model have explored differential interactions
between the host and home culture. Most studies support an integration model that includes
social interaction or ties and networks with both groups. Al-Sharideh and Goe (1998) conducted
telephone interviews with a stratified sampling of 226 international students in a university. The
hypothesis tested was that social ties (assimilation) with Americans influence the adjustment of
international students only when they have established social relationships with those of a similar
cultural background and form ethnic communities within the university context. The results
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 29
supported the hypothesis. The authors reported a curvilinear interaction effect between the
perceived assimilation of American culture, self-esteem, and the number of strong ties with
coculturals. The findings indicated that when a network of strong ties with coculturals reached
beyond 21 people, assimilation began to have a negative effect on self-esteem. The interpretation
of findings by Al-Sharideh and Goe (1998) was that contact with coculturals provides support for
international students—but when this cocultural network becomes too big, international students
may conform to their norms, and assimilation may not be reinforced. Al-Sharideh and Goe’s
(1998) study is important in showing the complexity of intercultural relationships. Based upon
their work, the number of international students on campus and the social networks available
appear to impact international students’ acculturation strategies and their ability to assimilate,
integrate, or separate—and thus to adapt.
Rajapaksa and Dundes’s (2002–2003) study found similar results. They compared the
adjustment of 182 international students to local students in the US on adjusting to college life.
Data were collected from a two-page survey. Results indicated that international students were
well adjusted in general. American students reported having more friends than international
students. Whereas number of friends did not correlate with adjustment for both groups,
satisfaction with social networks appeared to be essential for international students, but not for
local students. Chapdelaine and Alexitch (2004) expanded and tested Furnham and Bochner's
(1982) model of culture shock by bringing in additional variables. The sample consisted of male
international graduate students in a Canadian university who completed a questionnaire with
several measures of social interaction and cultural experience. Path analysis was used to assess
the effects of cultural differences, size of conational group, family status, cross-cultural
experience, and social interaction with host culture on measures of culture shock. Findings
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 30
indicated that as the degree of cross-cultural differences increases, as the size of the conational
group increases, the degree of interaction with host culture decreases. Married individuals with
children also had fewer interactions with host culture. Cultural differences and previous cultural
experiences were not linked to cultural shock.
Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, Al-Timimi, and Nada (2004) studied 141 international
students who completed surveys related to personal social support, demographic variables, and
acculturative stress. SEM analysis was used to derive a model that best fit the data. Findings
indicated that social support and English proficiency uniquely contributed to the variance in
students' acculturative stress. Students who primarily socialized with non-Americans and
students from Asian countries experienced more acculturative stress than European students.
Using Tinto’s model, Andrade (2006–2007) explored the concept of cultural integration
as it related to the retention and persistence of international students. Ethnographic interviews
and focus groups were conducted on a sample of international students in their senior year at a
private, religiously affiliated university. International students had high retention and graduate
rate at this university. Students shared about changes related to their being a college student,
changes adapting to a religious institution, and changes related to the home culture. They felt that
they had preserved their cultural integrity, and viewed the changes they made positively, as part
of intellectual, personal, or spiritual growth. Although interaction with faculty was not a focus of
the studies, student reports about their experiences indicated that relationships with faculty and
students were important. The study reported that international students did not view their
integration as assimilation. This study was unique in being the only study to implement a
developmental perspective of adaptation; as such, student changes and adaptations are viewed
positively as development and growth.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 31
Dao, Lee, and Chang (2007) examined the relationship between acculturation, perceived
English fluency, social support, and depression among 112 graduate Taiwanese international
students who completed a fluency of English scale, a social support questionnaire scale, the
Suinn-Lew Asian American Identity Acculturation Scale, and a depression scale. Ordinary Least
Squares analyses indicated that females, low-acculturated students, and students with low self-
perceived English fluency were at higher risk of depression. Self-perceived English fluency
mediated the effects of acculturation levels on depression for both males and females.
These studies provide support for the acculturation model, indicating the importance of
understanding the availability of conational/cultural groups for support (student or immigrant
communities) as well as social contact and interaction with the host culture. Findings support an
integration model that includes interaction with both the host culture and the
conational/cocultural community.
The missing piece to these studies is the investigation of the campus environment. The
level of optimal interaction is likely to depend on various host factors, such as campus setting or
culture, as well as the local or conational/cultural local community available. Unfortunately,
research has yet to examine the receptivity of the host culture. A few studies have focused on the
prejudicial and discriminatory experiences that international students encounter; however,
several studies have examined these experiences as a factor or mediating factor to adaptation.
Surdam and Collins (1984) found that international students who perceived
discrimination during the first three months of their stay were less well-adapted. Lee and Rice
(2007) explored the difficulties that international students encounter at a research university in
the US, utilizing the conceptual framework of neoracism. Twenty students from 16 countries
were interviewed. Data were organized under major themes of cultural discrimination, feelings
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 32
of discomfort, verbal discrimination, and direct confrontation. The authors contended that not all
of the issues international students encountered should be understood as adjustment issues;
indeed, inadequacies within the host society require closer examination.
Social contact with campus professionals. Ramsay, Jones, & Barker, and (2007)
reported that international students consider campus professionals to be a source of support.
Other research studies have examined international students’ help-seeking behavior on campus.
These studies are mostly from the counseling literature focused on seeking psychological help.
Zhang and Dixon (2003) examined the acculturation attitudes of Asian international students in
seeking psychological help. Surveys were mailed to 400 international students, and 140 were
returned. The survey included demographic items, the Suinn-Lew Asian American Identity
Acculturation Scale, and helping-seeking behavior. An analysis of multicollinearity was
conducted to detect intercorrelation among variables. Regression analysis indicated that the level
of acculturation (to White culture) predicted Asian international students’ help-seeking behavior.
Students’ acculturation levels were significantly connected to stigma tolerance and confidence in
mental health professionals.
Frey and Roysircar (2006) examined relationships of perceived prejudice and
acculturation with frequency of help resource utilization for international students. Participants
were 110 students from South Asia and East Asia who completed the American International
Relations survey and a frequency of help resource utilization checklist. Hierarchical multiple
regression analyses indicated that all three factors (acculturation, group membership, and
perceived prejudice) were factors associated with help utilization. South Asian students utilized
help resources more than East Asians. East Asians showed no difference between utilization of
services and levels of acculturation.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 33
Studies examining international students’ help-seeking behavior focus on counseling
professionals, without consideration of help-seeking behavior involving faculty members.
Because the international student’s purpose for staying in the US is primarily academic, it is only
logical that s/he would seek assistance from faculty for issues related to academic adjustment and
adjustment on campus. Research in student-faculty interaction is both exigent and needed.
Literature summary and critique
A review of empirical studies related to international students’ adaptation and adjustment
indicates that the research studies primarily focuses on the individual characteristics of
international students, such as demographic characteristics and student competencies and
language skills. Research studies indicate that contact with the host culture and social
interactions with local students are key factors to social adaptation. However, the responsibility
is largely placed on the international students to make contact and to develop social networks.
Few studies consider or explore campus/environmental contexts and other host culture factors.
Methodological issues also affect the study of international students’ adaptation. First,
scholars do not consistently apply theoretical frameworks, rendering it difficult to synthesize the
empirical data into a theory or model most relevant to international students. Second, as terms,
adaption and adjustment are vaguely defined and vary across studies. Some studies define
adaptation as the absence of psychological symptoms or acculturative stress symptoms. Other
studies use social contact versus social isolation as an indicator of adaptation. Notably, several
studies indicate that international students are well adjusted in general (Poyrazli et al., 2002;
Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002–2003). An adaptation model focusing on pathology, such as
acculturative stress, may overemphasize maladjustment and ignore the positive signs of
adjustments. Third, studies employ a wide range of instruments and measures, many of them are
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 34
surveys and questionnaires developed by the researcher, making comparisons rather difficult.
Fourth, the samples in most studies tend to be small convenience samples of a single university,
making generalizations very difficult, especially when considering the diversity of the
international student population. Fifth, very few longitudinal studies have been undertaken. Most
of the studies are cross-sectional, examining international students at different points in their
program rather than tracking their changes. Perhaps most significantly, almost none of the
studies on adjustment/adaptation adopt a developmental perspective; adaptation is considered in
terms of an end-goal for international students rather than a significant aspect of their growth and
development during these critical years. Last, but not least, social interaction with the host is a
recurring theme; however, studies have focused only on students’ interaction with peers and help
seeking from counselors. Few research studies consider the role of the faculty members
themselves in international students’ adaptation and adjustment. Similar to local students, faculty
plays an important role in the international students’ college years. Research exploring the role
of student-faculty interaction on the international students’ outcome is needed. The latter part of
this chapter focuses on the literature on student-faculty interaction.
International Students’ Interaction with Faculty
This section of literature review explores international students’ interaction with faculty.
A literature search using ERIC and PSYCINFO databases generated few items on the subject.
Given the dearth of literature in this area, the following literature review includes relevant
theories, articles, and empirical studies that shed light on international students’ interaction with
faculty. The review begins with a summary of literature from the 1960s and 1970s and tracks the
research trend up to the 2000s. Studies on faculty-student interaction utilizing Astin’s (1991)
Input-Environment-Outcome Model and the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP)
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 35
data for analysis are carefully reviewed, as these studies guide the methodological framework of
the current study. Diversity issues in student-faculty interaction are then presented, as they
demonstrate racial/ethnic differences in the pattern of student-faculty interaction as well as the
potential differential impact on minority students. Such differences have significant implications
for the international student population. Finally, current studies on international students’
interaction with faculty are reviewed, and issues relevant to this population are discussed.
Early studies on student-faculty interaction. The value of student-faculty interaction
has been well documented in higher education literature. Early Studies conducted in the 1960s
exploring the impact of the campus environment on student development identified the
importance of student-faculty interaction in and out of the classroom. Yuker (1966) sent
questionnaires to graduates of a university, and identified student satisfaction with faculty
interaction to be essential. Chickering (1967) described student-faculty interaction as a campus
environmental factor that can directly affect student development—as essential as curriculum,
residence hall, and evaluation methods. Research studies have focused on student characteristics
such as introvert/extrovert personality (Feinberg, 1972) as well as on faculty characteristics, such
as accessibility (Wood & Wilson, 1972), individual style (Snow, 1973), and sociopsychological
accessibility related to teaching practices (Wilson et al., 1974). Many of the early studies are
small-scale, institutional report types of studies, addressing student-faculty interaction issues and
their impact on educational outcomes within an institution.
Pascarella’s (1980) critical literature analysis examined the literature on student-faculty
interaction conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. He identified four major factors relevant to
student-faculty interaction: (a) initial student differences, such as achievement aspirations, values,
personality, and career dispositions, etc.; (b) faculty culture and classroom experiences such as
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 36
faculty characteristics, and normative academic and social climate of the institution; (c) peer
culture such as peer norms regarding acceptable modes of interaction with faculty; and (d) the
effects of institutional size such as physical and psychological distances. Pascarella (1980)
concluded that future research should examine the institutional impact on faculty, types of
faculty in class, and out of classroom interactions. He also offered methodological critiques: the
lack of assessment and control for the quality of students' formal classroom experiences; data
analysis methods cannot establish causality; and the quality of the independent variable
“interaction with faculty” needs further exploration to adequately describe the complexity of
faculty-student relationships. Research during the 1980s and 1990s expanded in content and
methodology, with many of the studies addressing issues raised by Pascarella (1980).
Studies in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1980s, the research literature on student-faculty
interaction became more varied, and the role of student-faculty interaction itself became more
prominent in higher education. Formal classroom interaction and out-of-class informal
interaction with faculty were two major focuses of research studies examining the quantity and
quality of student-faculty interaction and its impact on students of the era. Pascarella (1983)
surveyed 269 freshmen students at a nonresidential college to study faculty influence on student
development in a commuter setting. Results showed that the quality of student-faculty
interactions might be more important than the frequency of the interactions in the personal and
intellectual development of commuter students. Shaw and Creamer (1984) interviewed 26
undergraduate students to examine student-faculty relationships. Using a grounded theory
approach to data analysis, they identified patterns associated with student-faculty interaction, and
used a theoretical model to predict and explain students’ frequency and type of interaction with
faculty. Self-esteem, positive perception of the college environment, and involvement in college
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 37
life were the three main variables associated with likelihood to seek out informal out-of-class
interaction with professors. Berry (1985) reviewed the literature and concluded that significant
student-faculty interaction originated in the classroom, usually with academic concerns.
However, institutional policy and practices that support diverse faculty roles such as mentors,
leaders, and consultants were reportedly associated with the extent to which faculty can impact
students’ intellectual and personal development.
A few notable trends emerged from the research literature from the 1980s. Student-
faculty interaction gradually became tied to student retention and persistence (State University of
New York, 1982; Tang, 1981). Tinto’s (1987) study on the dimensions and consequences of
college attrition established clear links between the quality of faculty-student interaction and
attrition and student retention. Another notable trend was the direct application of college impact
theories. Endo and Harper (1981) examined the effects of student-faculty interaction on student
outcomes using a causal model adapted from the college impact theory. Their model included
students' background characteristics, four aspects of student-faculty interaction, and four
categories of outcomes.
Another trend that developed in the 1980s was that student-faculty interaction
increasingly became one of the quantitative measures used as an indicator of institutional quality
(Kuh, 1984). Studies examined student-faculty interaction as a key campus environment variable
(Hutchings, 1987; Indiana State Commission of Higher Education, 1988); others assessed
institutional policies aimed at enhancing student-faculty interaction (Kuh 1984).
Lastly, student-faculty interaction was clearly integrated into college impact theories, and
became a central component of Astin’s (1984, 1985) Student Involvement Theory, Kuh and
colleagues’ Student Engagement Theory (Kuh et al., 1991; Kuh et al., 1989), and Tinto’s
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 38
theories on student departure (1987) and student persistence (1997). The importance of student-
faculty interaction was firmly established in higher education theories during this period, and
was further supported by empirical studies in the 1990s. The following provides a brief summary
of these theories.
Student Involvement Theory. Alexander Astin presented a student development theory
based on student involvement (Astin, 1984, reprinted 1999). Student involvement is defined as
the “amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic
experience” (Astin, 1999, p. 519). The highly involved student spends energy studying,
participating in student organizations and extracurricular activities, and interacting frequently
with faculty members and other students. The theory postulates that student learning and
personal development is directly associated with the quantity and quality of student involvement
in his or her education program. The effectiveness of educational policy or practice is directly
related to “the capacity of that policy or practice to increase student involvement” (Astin, 1999, p.
519). Interaction with faculty is central to Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory. Astin’s
research literature has shown that frequent interaction with faculty is one the strongest factors in
student satisfaction with college experiences. Astin concluded, “Students who interact frequently
with faculty members are more likely than other students to express satisfaction with all aspects
of their institutional experience, including student friendships, variety of courses, intellectual
environment, and even the administration of the institution” (Astin, 1999, p. 525). Encouraging
student-faculty interaction would therefore be a productive activity for facilitating positive
student outcomes (Astin, 1999).
Student Engagement Theory. Similar to Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory,
Student Engagement Theory is based on the premise that “the time and energy students devote to
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 39
educationally purposeful activities predicts learning and personal development (Kuh, 2003).
Student Engagement Theory is built on Astin (1993), Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), and
Pace’s (1980) work (Kuh, 2003). The Student Engagement Surveys developed in the 2000s
derive from the Seven Principles for Good Practices in Undergraduate Education (Chickering &
Gamson, 1987, cited in Kuh, 2003), which includes the best known set of engagement indicators,
such as student-faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning, prompt feedback,
time on task, high expectations, and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.
Student Persistence Theory. Tinto’s Student Departure Theory (1987, 1988) refined his
earlier model on student departure, incorporating Van Gennep’s rite of passage and Durkheim’s
theory of suicide to provide a model that describes and explains the longitudinal process of
student departure. Tinto’s Student Departure Theory conceptualizes the college career as having
three stages: separation, transition, and incorporation. Separation involves dissociating from
one’s home and local communities. Transition involves acquiring the norms and patterns
appropriate to the new community. Incorporation is the process of being integrated. Social
interaction is crucial to the integration process; contact with students and faculty is crucial to
facilitating successful integration. Students may depart at different stages in the process.
Nordquist (1993) studied Tinto’s longitudinal model of attrition. Data were based on interviews
with 18 students (12 female and 6 male) who had withdrawn from several Utah universities.
Students cited faculty-student interaction as essential to a positive educational experience.
Mentoring relationships with faculty appeared to have the greatest impact on academic and
social integration and student retention.
Tinto’s model is probably most relevant to international students, as the theory describes
a process of cultural adaptation that is parallel to international student’s adjustment and
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 40
adaptation. Tanaka (2002) criticized Tinto’s model, arguing that it is based on an integrationist
position that emphasizes assimilation to the dominant institutional culture. Individuals from
ethnic minority groups are therefore expected to separate from their own communities and adapt
to the predominantly White campus culture. This critique is certainly relevant and applicable to
international students, as the responsibility is frequently placed on them to adapt, adjust, and
initiate contact with the host culture.
Faculty Engagement Studies
In addition to studies focusing on students, research considering the role of faculty in the
student-faculty interaction continued to be a research subject in the 1990s. Lamport (1993)
reviewed literature on the informal interactions of college students and faculty under eight
categories: (a) faculty as agents of socialization, (b) academic achievement, (c) satisfaction with
college, (d) intellectual and personal development, (e) persistence and attrition, (f) career and
educational aspiration, (g) faculty interpersonal characteristics, and (h) classroom atmosphere
and evaluation. Lamport’s review (1993) supports the important socializing role of faculty in all
these areas.
Jaasma and Koper (1999) surveyed 274 students at two medium-sized universities in the
west, measuring their verbal and nonverbal immediacy, trust, conversation control, and student
motivation, as well as frequency, length, content, and satisfaction with out-of-class
communication with faculty. Results identified faculty behaviors that promote closeness, trust,
and equality, and indicated that student motivation is positively associated with likelihood and
satisfaction with out-of-class communication.
Recent studies in 2000s. Two notable trends emerged in the research on student-faculty
interaction. First, a surge of large-scale national survey studies were undertaken, employing
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 41
complex statistical analyses to establish predictive relationships. Second, diversity issues became
an area of research interest, with many of the studies utilizing data from these large-scale
national surveys.
Studies using national surveys. Large-scale studies utilizing national surveys appeared
mostly in the 2000s. Two significant groups of researchers utilized two major sources of data: (a)
the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) from the University of California, Higher
Education Research Institute (HERI) and (b) The College Student Experiences Questionnaire
Assessment Program (CSEQ) and the National Student Engagement Survey (NSSE), managed
by Indiana University Bloomington. These studies are reviewed in greater detail, as they inform
the conceptual framework and methodologies of the current study.
Arrendodo (1995) examined the types of interaction with faculty that predicted students’
higher degree aspirations based on Astin’s Input-Environment-Outcome Model. The study
utilized the CIRP data (freshman and senior surveys) derived from 9,631 students from 300
institutions who completed the 1985 freshman survey and 1989 follow-up survey, as well as data
from the 1989 faculty survey. Input variables included a broad range of characteristics such as
SAT scores, socioeconomic status, drive to achieve, and other variables considered predictive of
interaction with faculty. Environmental variables such as institutional size and selectivity,
diversity orientation of faculty, student-faculty ratio, and variables that may influence student-
faculty interaction were also controlled. Dependent variables were outcome variables on the
senior follow-up survey, and included the student’s general involvement on campus, student
interactions with faculty, and satisfaction. Three-way cross-tabulations that controlled student
initial degree aspiration, student-faculty contact, and follow-up degree aspirations indicated that
degree aspirations increased as the amount of contact with faculty increased. Block regression
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 42
analysis found that when input and environmental variables were controlled, students who were
invited to professors' homes, who worked on a professor's research project, and spent hours
talking with professors outside of class were more likely to aspire to graduate study than students
who had not had these experiences.
Plecha (2002) examined the impact of negative student-faculty interaction on student
motivation and academic self-confidence. The impact of peer interaction was also explored in the
study. CIRP data were derived from 7,440 students from 115 institutions who completed the
1996 Freshman Survey and 2000 College Senior Survey. Using block regression analysis, five
blocks of student characteristics were entered to control for student input characteristics. The five
blocks included students’ initial academic self-confidence, demographic variables, students’
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational state, students’ diverse peer interaction during high school,
and students’ interaction with faculty during high school. Four blocks measuring environmental
variables were entered into the equation: institutional characteristics, student GPA, three
measures of diverse peer interactions, and measures of student-faculty interaction frequency and
negative interaction. The dependent variable was the academic self-confidence scale created
from six items. Frequency of student-faculty contact was a factor associated with academic self-
confidence. Talking with faculty out of class and receiving advice from faculty about one’s
education program were positively related to academic self-confidence, whereas visiting a
professor’s home was not. Student-faculty variables explained 1% of the total variance. Results
did not indicate that negative interaction with faculty, such as receiving negative feedback or not
being taken seriously by faculty, affected academic self-confidence. Diverse peer interactions
also predicted 1% of the total variance.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 43
Koljatic and Kuh (2001) conducted a longitudinal assessment on student engagement,
examining three education practices: cooperation with peers, active learning, and faculty-student
interaction. The purpose of the study was to examine whether the three good education practices
had improved between 1983 and 1997—since Chickering and Gamson (1987, cited in Koljatic
and Kuh, 2001) had proposed the Principles of Good Practice. The long timeframe for analysis
allowed for the detection of minor improvements analysis. Data were collected from the College
Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) second edition, from 1984 to 1989, and the third
edition, from 1990 to 1997. The sample included a total of 73,050 first- and second-year full-
time students at 283 four-year colleges. Thirteen items in the CSEQ addressed faculty-student
interaction. A random sample of 50% of the cases was included in the data analysis, while the
other 50% was retained for cross-validation purposes. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis
was used when years were entered after controlling for student demographic variables and
environmental variables. Effect sizes were calculated to estimate the importance of any
significant findings. Results indicated that students' perceptions of the environment, SES, and
academic preparation accounted for 15–29% of the overall variance. Demographic variables such
as gender (male/female), race/ethnicity, and major explained 7% of the variance. Changes in
good practices during the 15 years were limited, explaining less than 2% of the variance. Effect
size analysis also indicated minimal change in the outcome variables. Koljatic and Kuh (2001)
suggested that whereas the lack of changes appeared disappointing, notably, the overall level of
student engagement had been steady despite the substantial increase of students in postsecondary
education—many of whom were not academically well prepared.
Kuh and Hu (2001) examined the effects of student interaction in the 1990s, utilizing data
collected from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), third edition. The study
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 44
tracked the frequency and type of student-faculty interaction from freshman to senior year to
identify its contribution to student satisfaction and student learning. Results indicated that the
most frequent type of contact was course-related and the least common was working with faculty
on a research project. No gender (male/female) differences emerged in student-faculty
interaction, but ethnic differences were noted, with African Americans having more interaction
in general, Asian Americans having fewer substantial interactions, and Latino students having
more contact about writing assignments. As expected, student-faculty interaction increased
during the four years of college, and in advanced or upper division courses. Student-faculty
interaction affected the amount of student effort expended on educationally purposeful activities,
which in turn, affected student satisfaction and student gain scores. Kuh and Hu (2001) also
found that institutional type and selectivity had limited impact on how student-faculty interaction
affected student satisfaction and gain scores.
The National Survey of Student Engagement Report (NSSE, 2001) summarized data
collected from the first two years of the project, which included more than 100,000 students from
470 institutions. One of the key findings was that students from smaller, liberal arts colleges
were generally more engaged than those from larger, state institutions. Smaller institutions were
generally more favorable to student-faculty interaction. Regarding student interaction with
faculty, the study found that many institutions provided freshman seminar, service learning,
research opportunities, and capstone experiences to increase student-faculty interaction.
Alarmingly, about 45% of students reported that they had never discussed ideas from their
classes or readings with a faculty member outside of class. Half of the senior students reported
never having worked with a faculty member on activities other than coursework (committees,
orientation, and student-life activities). African American and Asian American students were less
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 45
positive about their relationships with peers and faculty; those in smaller colleges were less
positive about campus climate than those from larger institutions.
In summary, these large-scales studies provide opportunities to understand student-
faculty interaction not afforded by small-scale, local studies. Notably, data collected from the
studies indicated that the level of student interaction with faculty was not very high (NSSE,
2001). Despite increasing scholarly attention to the importance of student-faculty interaction, no
significant improvement on campuses occurred from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s (Koljatic &
Kuh, 2001). Data analyses indicated that the variance that student-faculty interaction contributed
to the dependent outcomes was not as high as expected. However, also notable was that research
findings began to note differences in ethnic minorities’ engagement with faculty (Kuh & Hu,
2001; NSSE, 2001).
Gender (Male/Female) and Ethnic/Racial Differences in Student-Faculty Interaction
Few of the earlier studies on student-faculty interaction provide disaggregated data on
gender (male/female) and race. The assumption appears to be that the positive impact of student-
faculty is universal. Research studies in the late 1990s to 2000s began to explore the differential
impact of student-faculty interaction on women (Hagedorn et al., 2000; Sax et al., 2005) and
ethnic minorities (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chang, 2005; Cole, 2007; NSSE, 2001; Santos &
Reigadas, 2000; Stith & Russell, 1994). These studies also examined relevant interracial
dynamics (Cole, 2007) and issues of differential treatment and discrimination (Suarez-Balcazar,
Orellana-Damacela, Portillo, Rowan, & Andrews-Guillen, 2003) that are relevant not only to
ethnic minority students but also to international students. Cole and Griffin (2013)’s
comprehensive literature review on student-faculty interaction focusing on race and ethnicity
issues provided insight on themes that are also applicable to international students.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 46
Gender (Male/Female). Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray (1988) conducted a study
at Vassar College involving the observation of 24 male and 21 female instructor–led classrooms
using a coding system to describe classroom interaction. Students and instructors’ behavior
leading to interaction were the focus of observation. Data were analyzed in a 2 x 2 x3 x 3
repeated measures analyses of variance with sex of instructor, sex of student, and division of the
curriculum and time in the semester. Results indicated that males were more active than females
in seeking interaction; however, there were no significant “sex of instructor” effects on the
aggregate measure of instructor-initiated interaction.
Hagedorn et al. (2000) examined gender (male/female) differences in peer interaction and
faculty-student interaction among community college students. The sample that completed a
classroom survey consisted of 179 male and 269 female students from a medium-sized,
ethnically diverse community college on the west coast. MANCOVA tests were used to detect
gender (male/female) differences on different variables (while controlling for background
variables) followed by discriminant analyses to examine how male and female students differed.
Results indicated generally low rates of interaction with faculty. About one-fifth of students had
never discussed personal concerns with an instructor. About 80% indicated that they had not had
informal interaction with faculty or discussed career options more than once in the semester. Due
to the low means and variances in most measures, gender (male/female) differences were
difficult to detect. Female students who discussed their career plans with faculty found it easier
to develop relationships and reported high levels of satisfaction with faculty members. Overall,
the effect sizes of any statistical significance were small, and thus findings were difficult to
interpret. The discriminant analysis also produced a small eignvalue and canonical correlation.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 47
Due to the small sample, whether the survey appropriately measured the types of involvement
pertaining to community college students was questionable.
Sax et al. (2005) explored gender (male/female) gaps in college outcomes, examining the
extent to which gender (male/female) differences are attributable to pre-existing gender
(male/female) gaps prior to college and to disparities in college experiences. Utilizing data drawn
from the CIRP freshman survey and the College Student Survey, regression analyses were
conducted on the 42 different outcomes (dependent variables). Independent variables included
demographic characteristics, precollege variables, institutional characteristics, and measures of
peer environment and college experience variables. Factor scales created through principal
components factor analysis with varimax rotation from other CIRP studies were used. Results
indicated that precollege variables played a much more significant role than college experience
variables in predicting gender (male/female) differences on the outcome measures. The only
college variable that accounted for gender (male/female) differences on outcomes was “feeling
supported by faculty.” Women felt more supported by faculty personally and professionally, and
were therefore more satisfied with faculty, curriculum, and the overall college experience.
Women were more likely than men to feel that their faculty provided them with personal and
professional support, thus accounting for women’s greater satisfaction with faculty, curriculum,
and the overall sense of community on campus (Sax et al., 2005). This study was the largest
scale study to date examining gender (male/female) differences in student-faculty interaction. In
all, gender (male/female) studies on student-faculty interaction have reported some gender
(male/female) differences but no major differential outcome on male and female students.
Students of color. Stith and Russell (1994) conducted a longitudinal study at a large
predominantly White university and reported that faculty-student interaction had a significant
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 48
impact on African American students. High-achieving African American students who interacted
with faculty outside of class had higher persistence than those who had not. The factors also
included receiving advisor’s help in scheduling courses, knowing advisor's name, and being
impressed with the faculty.
Two studies focused on Latino students’ interaction with faculty and the mentoring
effects on this population. Anaya and Cole (2001) explored the influence of student-faculty
interaction on college grades for Latina/o students. The authors utilized data from 836 college
students who completed the College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ). Student-faculty
interactions were grouped into three types: general, academically related, and personal contact.
Students reported mostly general and academically related contacts, with few students reporting
personal contact (19.7% or less). Most students perceived professors as neutral (46%); some
experienced them as remote and unsympathetic (12%). Hierarchical blocked regression was used
to examine the impact of student faculty interaction on academic grades. Student characteristics
were entered as the first block, followed by institutional characteristics as the second block, and
student-faculty interaction as the third block. Results indicated that only a few of the student-
faculty interaction variables had a unique effect on academic achievement for Latina/o students:
quality of perceived relationships with faculty, academically related, and personal interactions
with faculty. Santos and Reigadas (2000) reported the impact of a faculty mentoring program on
Latino students at a California State University campus. A mail survey was sent to participants of
the faculty mentor program, and data collected from 32 Latino students were analyzed. The
survey included three indices of college adjustment: a 20-item mentor perception scale assessing
career and personal development, and a gross index of student satisfaction. Results indicated that
participants of the program increased in academic self-efficacy and academic goal definition.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 49
Students with an ethnic-matched mentor perceived their mentor to be more helpful in academic
and career advancement than those with an ethnic-other mentor. They also reported higher
satisfaction with the program. The authors discussed the importance of role modeling for Latino
students, who tended to be first-generation college students. Lastly, frequency of contact was
associated with academic adjustment, perceived mentor helpfulness, and overall satisfaction with
the program.
Chang (2005) studied faculty-student interaction among students of color, using data
collected from the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS)
survey. The survey was administered to collect information on retention and perseverance
among students; a sample of 5,000 students completed the survey. A sample of 2,500 students
informed this research. Community college students are unique, as many of them are commuters
and have different patterns of engagement. Frequency distributions revealed generally low levels
of interaction with faculty, with African American students reporting the highest mean
frequencies, followed by White, Latino, and API students, respectively. The primary type of
interaction occurred in class and around course-related topics. Out of class interaction was
limited. Chang also reported unique patterns of interaction. For example, he found that African
American students of lower academic preparation interacted more with instructors; African
Americans comprised the only group for which attending orientation was positively associated
with interaction with faculty. Asian American/Pacific Islanders also presented a unique pattern.
Being older, having well-educated parents, and spending more time on campus—qualities
commonly associated with higher levels of faculty-student interaction—were not applicable to
Asian American/Pacific Islanders. The study pointed to the complexity of fully understanding
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 50
the student-faculty interaction dynamics for students of color. Much more research examining a
range of variables is necessary.
Cole (2007) examined the impact of interracial interactions on student-faculty contact
and intellectual self-concept utilizing the CIRP data. Data were derived from a random sample of
7,063, full-time students from 119 predominantly White institutions who completed the 1994
freshman and 1998 follow-up survey. In addition, data from the 1998 Faculty Survey were also
accessed to identify relevant faculty characteristics as institutional environmental variables. The
multi-institutional study allowed multilevel analyses of the impact of interracial interactions.
Results indicated that interracial interactions directly related to student-faculty interactions but
not to intellectual self-concept. The structural diversity of the institution was also relevant, and
had significant effects on the types and quality of student-faculty interaction.
Kim (2010) confirmed that all student racial groups have unique patterns of student-
faculty interaction. In general, White and African American students have higher levels of
academic or personal interaction than Asian and Latino students. While student-faculty
interaction benefits all students on GPA, it appears that the effects on student outcomes and
causal directions are uniquely different. Einarson & Clarberg’s (2010) study attempted to
identify the specific needs of students of color of different race and ethnicities. They advocated
that faculty development workshops or training provide constructive suggestions for faculty to
interact effectively with students of color to enhance the quality of these interactions.
Employing qualitative research methods, Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2003) explored
experiences of differential treatment of students of color in college. Thirty students were
interviewed for 30 minutes each and were asked to describe an incident in which they felt they
had been treated differently. Content analysis identified one common theme of being ignored by
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 51
an instructor and being stereotyped in class. In the second phase, students were asked to rate the
experiences to assess the degree of offensiveness or discrimination. This study indicated that the
quality of classroom interactions is as important as assessing the frequency of interactions; issues
such as differential treatment should not be ignored.
In summary, the literature mostly supports the positive impact of student-faculty
interaction on ethnic minority groups. Studies also pointed to within–racial/ethnic group
differences and the differential impact of student-faculty interaction on students (Chang, 2005;
Stith & Russell, 1985). Faculty-student racial/ethnic match (Anaya & Cole, 2001), interracial
dynamics (Cole, 2007), and issues of discrimination (Suarez-Balcaza et al. 2003) should not be
underestimated.
As Cole and Griffin’s (2013) literature review indicated, racial /ethnic issues on college
campuses are complex and that examination of student-faculty interactions should be expanded
to include the faculty and institutional perspectives as well. Theoretical perspectives useful in
understanding the motivation and outcomes of student-faculty interaction relevant to
international students should also be explored in empirical studies.
Qualitative Aspects of Student-Faculty Interaction
Qualitative studies on student-faculty interaction enrich our understanding of the
complexity of relational dynamics between students and faculty. Jaasma and Koper’s (2001)
study focused on out-of-class interaction with faculty. The authors pointed out the difficulty of
defining out-of-class interaction, particularly in relation to issues of duration and content of
interaction. Their study attempted to understand out-of-class interaction from students’
perspectives. Participants were 93 students from two mid-sized universities who were instructed
to report the location and time of one out-of-class interaction with faculty, describing who
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 52
initiated the interaction, the demographic characteristics of the student and faculty, and the
details of the interchange. Student responses were then content analyzed, resulting in six
categories of content: course-related (65%), self-disclosure (24%), small talk (12%), advice
(18%), intellectual idea (5%), and favors (2%). The functions of these communications were
discussed from the students’ perspectives.
Andersen and Carta-Falsa (2002) examined student-faculty interaction in class,
employing qualitative methods to identify what faculty and students want from their relationship
without any preconceived assumptions. Four hundred students and 24 faculty members from a
university responded to a questionnaire aimed at eliciting narratives. Three themes were
identified from thematic analysis of narrative data: learning/teaching environment, exchange of
information, and mentor/peer association. The researchers reported that open, respectful, and
nonthreatening student-faculty relationships are essential to the teaching/learning environment.
In the exchange of information, students reported a desire to learn and interact with each other
but not with the instructor. In mentor/peer association, students wanted to develop networks with
friends, while faculty focused on effective teaching methods and did not express strong interest
in collaborating with students.
Cotten and Wilson (2006) conducted a qualitative study of student-faculty interactions to
explore the frequency and nature of interactions, the determinants of interactions, and the
dynamic processes that underlie contact between faculty and students. Forty-nine undergraduate
students in a mid-size research university in the mid-Atlantic region participated in focus groups
of one to two hours long. Focus groups were stratified according to class standing, residential
status, and residential assistant status. An inductive approach to data analysis was adopted to
capture the analytical constructs. Additional coding refined the identified categories. Results
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 53
indicated student-faculty interaction to be infrequent and limited in scope. Students appeared
unaware of the potential benefits of interaction with faculty. Student perceptions were that
interactions were beneficial and costly—beneficial to academics and career, and “costly” in
terms of the obligation to put in effort. Barriers to interaction can include students’ time, interest,
and awareness, faculty’s attitudes, presence, and personality, as well as class size, campus design,
and program factors.
Cox and Orehevoc (2007) also examined faculty-student interaction outside of the
classroom, focusing on its nature and on the conditions that foster or inhibit such interactions.
The study was conducted at a residential college of a large state university designed to facilitate
student-faculty interaction. The year-long, qualitative study employed multimethods, including
focus groups, interviews, and observations. Based on content and contextual analysis of the data,
five types of faculty-student interaction were identified: disengagement, incidental contact,
functional interaction, personal interaction, and mentoring. The researchers found disengagement
to occur most frequently, followed by incidental contact. Few personal interactions occurred, and
mentoring relationships were rare. Despite the intentional effort of the institution to facilitate
faculty-student interaction, barriers existed. The authors suggested that institutional cultural
norms and practices, personal values and beliefs, interpersonal skills, time constraints, and many
other factors should be further explored to effectively facilitate student-faculty interaction. Cox
(2011) further elaborated the typology of out of classroom interactions. In particular they
indicated that even incidental contacts may be meaningful to students and may change the
interaction pattern as well as student’s perception of faculty.
In summary, research studies using qualitative methodology highlight the complexity of
understanding interpersonal dynamics, classroom group dynamics (Andersen and Carta-Falsa,
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 54
2002), and many other factors. Quality personal and mentoring relationships with faculty are rare
(Cox & Orehevoc, 2007). Understanding students’ and faculty’s values and perceptions of both
in-class and out-of-class interactions (Cotten & Wilson, 2006) are essential factors in future
research studies.
Faculty perspectives on student-faculty interaction. Previous research on student-
faculty interaction has focused primarily on the student perspectives. Cole and Griffins (2013)
advocated that examining faculty perspectives on student-faculty interaction would be essential.
There are currently few studies examining faculty attitudes and behaviors. Cox, McIntosh,
Terenzini, Reason, Quaye (2010) examined data from 2845 faculty members on 45 campuses.
The attempt was to identify personal, institutional and pedagogical factors affecting the
frequency and type of student-faculty interaction outside classroom. Contrary to the expectations,
results indicated that collectively instructors’ gender, race, field, rank, time-commitments and
pedagogical practices do not predict student-faculty interaction outside class. Lechuga (2011)
examined faculty-graduate student relationships through interviews of underrepresented faculty
members from a research university. He examined three broad roles and responsibilities
described as Allies, Ambassadors and Master-Teachers.
Another area of research focus on student-faculty interaction related to new technologies.
Li and Pitts (2009) examined web-based technologies and found that students offered virtual
office hours reported higher satisfaction with office hours than those offered only traditional
face-to-face hours. The authors suggested that faculty should take these new technologies into
consideration. Malesky and Peters (2012) examined opinions on student-faculty interaction on
social network sites such as Facebook.com and Myspace.com. The authors cautioned that
guidelines should be developed to define appropriate and inappropriate student-faculty
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 55
interaction on social network sites in academic setting. Proper boundaries setting may be
necessary on these social interactions. Similarly, Schneider, Jones, Farris, Havrda, Jackson &
Hamrick (2011) also examined appropriate faculty behaviors in social interactions that may be
considered boundary violations on such social network sites.
Implications for International Students
What are the implications of the research literature for international students? Certainly
more questions are raised than answered. Does interaction with faculty affect international
student attrition, persistence, and retention? What are the frequencies and types of interaction
most common between international students and faculty? Are there language and cultural
barriers that prevent international students from engaging with faculty? Are any programs—such
as mentoring programs—aimed at facilitating international students’ interaction with faculty?
What are some of the characteristics of international students that may predict interaction with
faculty? What may be some of the outcomes unique to international students? Currently, the
literature barely addresses these questions.
Studies on International Students’ Interaction with Faculty
Zhao et al. (2005) conducted the largest scale quantitative study on international students,
utilizing national survey data from the College Student Report developed by the National Survey
of Student Engagement (NSSE). The purpose of their study was to explore international students’
engagement in effective education practice; how their ethnic background shaped their
engagement; and whether the proportion of international students on campus had an impact on
their engagement. Zhao et al. (2005) compared international students to local students. Results
indicated that international students scored higher than local students on all levels of academic
engagement. First-year international students had higher engagement on academic challenge,
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 56
student-faculty interaction, and computer technology use based on simple t-test comparisons.
They also reported greater gains in personal and social development and general education.
Differences between senior international students and local students were also reported, with
senior international students more engaged in academic work, showing more use of technology,
and demonstrating greater participation in diversity-related activities. Regression analyses using
both multilevel modeling and ordinary least squares (OLS) techniques indicated that after
controlling for student-level and institutional-level characteristics, the patterns of engagement of
international students were similar to those reported by the t-test comparisons. Because student-
faculty interaction was only one aspect of student engagement explored, details on the subject
were somewhat limited from the study. Nevertheless, the findings provided some evidence that
international students’ interaction with faculty may be different from that of local students;
racial/ethnic differences among international students were also noted.
Other than Zhao et al.’s (2005) study, most of the current literature on international
students’ interaction and relationship with faculty has focused on international graduate students,
examining pedagogical and teaching practices. Beykont and Daiute (2002) investigated graduate
students’ perspectives on classroom interaction and experiences. Eighteen international graduate
students in education programs at a private university were interviewed regarding the structural
and interpersonal aspects of courses in their countries of origin, compared to the courses they had
in the graduate program. Students were asked to compare the roles and expectations for students
and instructors, to reflect on patterns of interaction, and to make suggestions to faculty members.
The majority of international students reported that classes in their home country were professor-
centered, mostly one-way presentations with little in-class discussion. They felt more
comfortable when professors set clear directions, clarified pedagogical assumptions, ensured
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 57
equality in student participation, kept the discussions on track, and genuinely listened to diverse
perspectives. International students valued listening and thinking independently before
interacting and making a contribution to class discussions—a type of cognitive processing that
differs from the “brain-storming” type of self-expressive talk that is highly valued in American
pedagogical practices. The authors encouraged faculty to consider different modes of discourse
in classroom interactions to create respectful and inclusive intellectual environments that take
students’ education history and values into consideration. Fatima’s (2001) qualitative study of
female graduate students reported similar findings, with most of the students wanting the
institution to facilitate interactions with local students and to establish a forum for them to share
their experiences, as well as for faculty to show understanding of their limitations.
Although research studies on international students’ interaction with faculty are few,
studies on international students indicate that support from faculty may be relevant. Leong and
Sedlacek (1986) compared international and U.S. freshmen’s preferences for help sources. A
questionnaire was administered to 194 international students and 179 U.S. students, listing 12
sources of help presented with an education-vocational problem and an emotional-social problem.
Results indicated that international students preferred a faculty advisor/member, parents, or an
older friend for educational-vocational problems, and parents or an older friend for emotional-
social problems. U.S. students were more likely to seek a student-friend or an older friend for
both types of problems. Leong and Sedlacek (1986) attributed international students’ preference
for formal sources of help to their lack of social support systems and social isolation in United
States. This study was conducted more than 20 years ago, and the sample size was small;
however, it is one of the very few studies that addressed international students’ needs/desires to
interact with faculty.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 58
Faculty Perspectives on International Students
Tompson and Tompson (1996) e-mailed surveys to business faculty at two universities to
identify both student behaviors that undermined academic performance and teaching strategies
that facilitated students’ in-class and out-of-class academic experiences. Faculty reported
concerns such as low class participation, not asking for clarification on assignments, interacting
only with international students, and violating ethical standards of scholarship. International
students participated in focus groups to describe their adjustment processes and coping strategies.
Students reported language and cultural differences (the norms, rules, and expectations) as
primary barriers to participation in class. Students from cultures based on collectivism also
viewed ethics in scholarly work differently than those from cultures that value individualism.
The authors recommended that instructors adopt four strategies with international students: (a)
schedule brief meetings to build rapport and connection, (b) create culturally diverse groups with
specific tasks to encourage social integration in class, (c) change class format and teaching
strategies such that teaching techniques do not interfere with teaching content, and (d) create
open and nonthreatening classrooms to discuss diversity issues.
Young’s (1998) exploratory study gathered data by interviewing three communication
department faculty members with experience teaching international students. The study shifted
focus from the international students to faculty, and examined faculty’s role and responsibility in
facilitating intercultural adaptation, their ethical perspective on assessing international students,
and how they handled cultural and language differences in the evaluation process. All
participants agreed upon mutual responsibility for intercultural adaptation and that ethics were
negotiated by situation. Their operational strategies to assist students differed.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 59
Trice (2001) examined faculty’s attitudes toward international graduate students through
comparative case studies of four academic departments (public health, architecture, mechanical
engineering, and materials science and engineering departments) at three professional schools in
a Midwestern university. Fifty-four faculty members in the departments were interviewed.
Faculty members showed awareness of a range of problems that international graduate students
usually encounter. Whereas some faculty observed few differences between domestic and
international students, most indicated an awareness of the unique academic and personal issues
that international students face. Most faculty members recognized that language problems were a
hurdle. The author found faculty members interested and committed to international students’
academic and career pursuits. Some differences among departments were noted and discussed.
Although it did not address student-faculty interaction, this study showed positive indications
that faculty members were aware of international students’ needs.
Research on faculty has indicated that most faculty members have some awareness of
international students’ needs (Trice, 2001). However, gaps exist between international students’
perspectives and faculty’s perspectives on classroom interaction issues (Tompson & Tompson,
1996). Shared responsibility appears to be important in facilitating intercultural adaptation
(Young, 1998), and international students appear to need more assistance from faculty (Tompson
& Tompson, 1996).
In summary, the literature review on student-faculty interaction reveals a noteworthy
literature gap regarding international students’ interaction with faculty. To date, we know very
little about how interaction with faculty may impact international students’ development and
their outcome. Review of the available studies indicated that international students may desire
more engagement with faculty members. It seems highly likely that student-faculty interaction
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 60
also has a positive impact on international student’s developmental outcome—although few
research studies have investigated this dynamic. It is also likely that faculty plays an important
role in international student’s adaptation and adjustment, particularly in academic adjustment.
Moreover, the role of faculty in structuring in-class interaction may be important to facilitating
peer interaction.
This study seeks to understand student-faculty interaction for international students using
longitudinal national survey data. The assumption is that student-faculty interaction is essential
to facilitating student adaptation and adjustment, and thus impacts international students’
academic outcome.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 61
Chapter Three: Methods
The Input–Environment-Outcome Model
The methodology of the current study is guided by Alexander W. Astin’s Input-
Environment-Outcome (or Input-Environment-Output) Model (Astin, 1991, 1993), which
provides both the research and statistical framework to examine the impact of student-faculty
interaction on international students. This chapter presents the background of the model, then the
method for the current study.
Background of Astin’s Model. Alexander W. Astin is a central figure in higher
education research, best known for his Input-Environment-Outcome Model, which examines
college impact on students. His interest in college students and the institutional environment
began when he was a research staff member of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation
(Astin, 2003). While examining students’ choice of college upon receiving a merit scholarship,
the staff expanded its research question to whether the choice of college impacted subsequent
student development. This analysis led to a large-scale study of 127,212 entering college
freshman from a diverse but representative sample of higher education institutions in 1961.
Through a series of longitudinal studies, researchers were able to demonstrate that students’
output (e.g., education attainment such as earning graduate fellowship or doctorates) was largely
attributable to students’ characteristics when they first entered college (input). The so-called
highly productive institutions turned out to be highly selective institutions, and productivity
could be attributed to the selectivity based on the entering student’s characteristic (Astin, 2003).
Findings from the series of longitudinal studies allowed Astin to develop a model that takes
student characteristics into account when examining the college environment.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 62
In one of his earlier works, The College Environment (1968), Astin demonstrated how
differential college impacts on student development can be assessed by identifying and
measuring the environments of undergraduate institutions. Using the Inventory of College
Activities, his research team focused on four aspects of the college environment: peer
environment, classroom environment, administrative environment, and physical environment.
College image items as well as student characteristics were also included in the study. Factor
analyses of correlations among the different items yielded patterns of environmental stimuli that
differentiated institutions; thus the diversity of college environments was noted. Since that study,
the impact of college environment on students’ educational and personal development continues
to be an important subject of research in higher education.
The longitudinal studies in higher education that began at the National Merit Scholarship
Corporation later expanded into the Cooperative Institution of Research Programs (CIRP), which
was incepted in 1966 at the American Council on Education and later moved to the University of
California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institution (HERI) (Astin, 2003). Based on
continuous research findings, Astin refined the initial Input-Environment-Output Model in his
writings (1968, 1977, 1985, and 1991), although the basic elements of the model have remained
the same (Astin, 1993). The Input-Environment-Outcome Model is designed to “produce
information on how outcomes are affected by different education policies and practices” (Astin,
2002, p. 37).
The Model
According to Astin (2002)’s Input-Environment-Output or Input-Environment-Outcome
Model, input refers to the personal qualities or characteristics the student brings to the program at
the time of entry. Environment refers to “the actual experiences during the education program”
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 63
(2002, p. 18). Output or outcome refers to the talents developed in the education program. By
studying the relationships among the three components, the I-E-O design allows researchers to
adjust for input differences when examining environment factors on the outcomes. The CIRP
program surveys are based on such a model and intend to measure all three components.
Input. College student input characteristics in the CIRP program, as described by Astin
(2002), include fixed or invariant characteristics of the students as well as characteristics that
change over time. Examples of fixed characteristics are gender (male/female), race/ethnicity,
language spoken at home, parents’ education and occupation, family income, and others. There
are six subcategories for characteristics that change over time: (a) cognitive functioning (high
school GPA, SAT scores, and other placement test data); (b) aspirations and expectations (self-
predictions, degree aspirations, intended major, probable career choice, etc.); (c) self-ratings
(self-esteem and self-ratings of abilities and confidence as compared to same-age peers); (d)
values and attitudes (social values, political values, and views on educational issues), (e)
behavioral patterns (ranging from time spent on homework, talking with teachers, and partying
to smoking cigarettes); and (f) educational background characteristics (type of high school, study
habits in high school, etc.). Input characteristics are assessed during fall of the freshman year
through The Freshman Survey.
Environment. Astin (2002) differentiated two broad environmental measures: (a) total
institutional characteristics (e.g., size, selectivity) that affect all students, and (b) particular
educational experiences within the institution (e.g., living in the dormitory, participation in a
student organization). Total institutional characteristics allow comparisons between institutions;
within-college environmental educational experiences allow subunit studies and analyses. This
type of data can be obtained from institutional records or collected through questionnaires.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 64
Output/Outcome. Outcome variables are frequently the “dependent” variables most
important to researchers; they are also the objectives and goals for educators attempting to
impact the students (Astin, 2002). In Astin’s I-E-O Model, the two typical outcomes for college
students are cognitive and affective (noncognitive). Cognitive variables include ability,
knowledge, skills, achievements, degree attainments, and so forth. Affective variables include
values, interests, self-concepts, attitudes, and others. Types of data include psychological
(internal states or traits of students) and behavioral (observable activities). Outcomes can be
short term (immediately upon graduation) or long term (later in professional life) (Astin, 2002).
Outcome variables are measured through a survey administered during the senior year.
Correlations of Measures and Analysis of Data
Astin (2002) noted how the components of the Input-Environment-Outcome Models are
correlated, as they are not mutually exclusive. In particular, input characteristics correlate with
output as well as with environment. Controlling input characteristics is thus central to studying
environmental impact and outcome. A well-known example of input-environment correlation
would be that students from high-income families are more likely than students from low-income
families to attend selective institutions. An example of input-output correlation would be grade
point average. The complexity of these correlations can be explored through statistical analyses.
Astin’s I-E-O Model includes a statistical model for analysis (Astin, 2002). Astin (2002)
provided statistical analysis methods for the I-E-O Model. These methods include (a) single
variable descriptive analyses; (b) cross-tabulation and correlation to describe relationships
between variables; (c) three-way tabulation to include input, environment, and output
component,; (d) correlation and regression analyses to explore “causal” relationships; and (e)
examination of interaction effects (input-environment, input-input, environment-environment).
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 65
The statistical analytical framework has been used in many research studies in higher education.
The current study adopts the statistical framework for data analysis.
CIRP Survey Measures
The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey program collects input,
environment, and outcome data through three student surveys: the long-running CIRP Freshman
Survey, follow-up assessments of Your First College Year (YFCY), and the College Senior
Survey (HERI, n.d.). The CIRP Freshman Survey covers a wide range of student input
characteristics, such as race/ethnicity and other demographic information such as parental
income and education, and financial aid information. It also includes information on secondary
school achievement activities, educational and career plans, college expectation, student values,
attitudes, goals, beliefs, and self-concept. Your First College Year survey was designed in 2000
to assess the academic and personal development of students over the first year of college.
Previously known as the College Student Survey, the redesigned College Senior Survey is now
an exit survey instrument. It is primarily an outcome assessment survey that assesses students'
academic and campus life experiences (HERI, n.d.). Some of the survey questions are identical
to the CIRP Freshman Survey to allow for comparisons. It allows researchers to (a) evaluate
student satisfaction; (b) collect information on student involvement, academic, and
extracurricular experiences; (c) understand students’ values, attitudes, and goals; (d) assess
student’s academic achievement and postcollege plans/aspirations; (e) measure retention; and (f)
study specific campus issues (HERI, n.d.). The longitudinal use of the surveys allows
researchers to examine student changes during their college experience—information not
available in national student surveys that primarily collect cross-sectional data. The reliability
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 66
and validity of the CIRP Freshman Survey is discussed in CIRP Freshman Survey: Reliability
and Validity (HERI, n.d.).
In addition, the CIRP program includes a faculty survey that examines faculty’s attitudes,
experiences, concerns, job satisfaction, workload, teaching practices, and professional activities,
thereby providing an additional perspective on higher education institutions (HERI, n.d.). The
CIRP program provides the data to examine college impact using the I-E-O model. Its
longitudinal nature allows research studies to track student changes not offered by other cross-
sectional surveys.
Applying the I-E-O Model to International Students
The Input-Environment-Outcome Model provides an appropriate framework for
understanding international students. As discussed in the previous chapter, review of the research
literature on international students shows an overwhelming emphasis on adjustment and
adaptation. Such perspectives focus on the individual input characteristics of international
students (age, marital status, and race/ethnicity) that predict adjustment/adaptation, but neglect
the role of the environmental on their adjustment. The model emphasizes the importance of
studying the role of the education institution on the international students by controlling for input
characteristics, a much-neglected area of research among this population. It encourages
exploration of environmental impact on international students, supporting such questions as:
What are the environmental factors favorable to international students’ adjustment? What is the
education experience of the international students? What are the student development outcomes
for international students? What are some potential interactions of student characteristics and
college environments that produce the best outcome for international students?
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 67
Current research studies on international students are mostly cross-sectional studies of
small convenience samples from single-education institutions. Their focus is on student input
characteristics, and the outcome is primarily conceptualized as adaptation and adjustment. The
Input-Environment-Outcome Model provides a methodological framework for examining
environmental aspects. The international student’s interaction with faculty is conceptualized as
an environmental variable. Student input characteristics are controlled statistically. Adaptation
would be explored conceptually an intermediate outcome that impacts academic outcome.
The Input-Environment-Outcome Model also provides a conceptual framework that
allows for the incorporation of other theoretical concepts relevant to international students.
Berry’s (1997, 1998) acculturation model describes four disposition or strategies most relevant to
immigrants, refugees, and sojourners: integration, separation, assimilation, and marginalization.
Acculturative stress (Berry et al. 1986) is stress that indicates maladjustment, and includes
symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and poor physical and emotional well-being (Sandhu &
Asrabadi, 1994). Similar to the acculturation model is Tinto’s (1987, 1988) model of student
departure and persistence, which focuses on integration into the higher education institutional
culture. Tinto’s description of the stages of integration into the academic culture (separation,
transition, and incorporation) shares many similarities with Berry’s four disposition and
strategies. The role of interaction with both peers and faculty plays an important role in this
model.
In the CIRP Freshman Surveys, Astin (1993) identified two items (depression, being
overwhelmed) as measures of psychological well-being; however, the items have only been
studied as variables but not as a single construct. To investigate adaptation, a few variables in the
College Senior Survey will be incorporated to measure adaptation, including symptoms of
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 68
acculturative stress (depression, being overwhelmed, homesickness, etc.). Students’ self-
perception of success are examined as positive indicators of academic and social adaptation.
Adaptation variables are conceptualized as an intermediate outcome variable to international
students’ academic outcome.
Research Questions
In the current study, the key research question is: How does interaction with faculty
impact the academic outcome of undergraduate international students? There are three research
subquestions: First, how do international students interact with faculty, and what are the
frequencies and types of contact? Second, how does student-faculty interaction impact
international students’ adaptation and adjustment? Third, how does student-faculty interaction
impact international student’s academic outcome?
Data
Data were drawn from a national longitudinal sample of college students from the CIRP
program who were surveyed upon entry to college in 2000 (Freshman Survey, 2000) and four
years later in the College Senior Survey 2004 (CSS, 2004). The Freshman Survey provides
information on student characteristics and the College Senior Survey supplies data on the
students’ college experiences and their outcomes.
There were potential limitations to accessing the CIRP surveys as a data source. The
surveys do not formally inquire about international student status. Rather, students identify
themselves as “citizens,” “greencard,” or “neither.” Nevertheless, the CIRP data represents one
of the largest possible datasets in higher education for examining international students.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 69
Variables Selected
Variables from the CIRP 2000 Freshman Survey and the 2004 College Senior Survey
selected in the study are listed in Appendix I. Figure 1 illustrates the Input-Environment-
Outcome Model for international students used in the current study. Input characteristics of
international students from the Freshman Survey examined in this study include: (a)
demographic information such as gender (male/female), race/ethnicity, native English speaker,
religion, and parental education; (b) academic information such as high school GPA, SAT scores,
and self-assessment of academic ability, etc.; (c) self-reported psychological well-being such as
feelings of depression and feelings of being overwhelmed; and (d) student-teacher interaction
during secondary school.
The College Senior Survey provides data on the international students’ education
experience as well as outcome variables. Variables derived from the College Senior Survey
include both environmental and outcome variables. Student-faculty interaction is conceptualized
as a college experience variable. It consists of 13 items on student-faculty interaction from the
survey. Adaptation is conceptualized as the absence of acculturative stress symptoms (felt
depressed, overwhelmed, or lonely/homesick) as well as 7 positive adjustment indicators based
on self-perceived success variables (utilizing campus services, understanding professors’
academic expectations, developing effective study skills, adjusting to the academic demands of
college, managing time effectively, getting to know faculty, and developing close friendships
with other students). Adaptation and adjustment is conceptualized as an intermediate outcome
variable, which in turn, impacts academic outcome and success. Academic outcome variables
include college GPA, GRE scores, and self-assessment of academic ability. Student satisfaction
is not the focus on the current study. However, given that very few studies have examined
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 70
student-faculty interaction among international students, collecting data as indicators of
international students’ overall satisfaction with their interaction with faculty is deemed
appropriate. Four satisfaction indicators are included: students’ overall satisfaction, satisfaction
with amount of contact with faculty, the ability to find faculty/staff mentors, and overall quality
of instruction.
Institutional environment variables include institutional size, selectivity, and student and
faculty diversity. Faculty participation in scholarship on global/international student issues is an
additional campus environment factor that can be potentially favorable to international students’
interaction with faculty.
Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses are guided by Astin’s (2002) statistical analysis methods for the I-
E-O Model. In this study, it consists of descriptive analyses, factor analyses, and regression
analyses. Refer to Figure 1 for the conceptualization of data analyses.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 71

Input → Environment → Outcome

Student Characteristics Student-faculty Interaction Adaptation

Academic
High School GPA
SATV, SATM
ACTCOMP
Academic ability
Self Confidence
(Intellectual)
(SELFRAT01, 15)

Psychological Well
Being
Felt depressed
Felt overwhelmed

Prior interaction with
Teachers

Guest
Ask for advice
Outside class
Demographics
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
Native English
Speaker
Religion
Parental Education

Guest in a Professor's Home
Met with Faculty during &
outside class/office hours

Encouragement for Graduate
School
Opportunity to Work in Research
Project
Advice about Educational
Program
Respect
Opportunity to Publish
Emotional Support &
Encouragement
Letter of Recommendation
Assistance with Study Skills
Negative Feedback about
Academic Work
Intellectual Challenge &
Stimulation
Opportunity to Discuss
Coursework Outside Class
Help in Achieving Professional
Goals
Apply Classroom Learning to
Real Life

↑
Institutional
Private
Size
Selectivity
Student diversity
Faculty diversity
Race/ethnicity
% foreign born
% of Faculty scholarship in
international /global issues

Academic Outcome
GPA
GREV, GREM
Academic Ability
Self Confidence
(Intellectual)

Acculturative Stress
Felt depressed
Felt overwhelmed
Lonely/homesick

Successful Adaptation
Utilizing campus
services,
Understanding
academic expectations,
Developing effective
study skills
Adjusting to academic
demands
Manage time
effectively
Getting to know
faculty
Developing close
friendships with other
students
↓

Figure 1. The Input-Environment-Outcome Model for International Students

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 72
Single Variable Descriptive Analyses
Sample characteristics. Demographic characteristics of the sample, such as gender
(male/female), race/ethnicity, marital status, native English speaker, religion, and parental
education would be summarized and presented as single variable descriptive analyses to examine
international students’ characteristics. Characteristics of international students’ attending
institutions would also be reported.
Factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis of the 13 student-faculty interaction
variables would be conducted to identify factor clusters. A scale score was developed and
examined with the Cronbach alpha (α) level.
Regression analyses. A series of block regression analyses were conducted to examine
factors associated with the outcomes. The first series of analyses examined adaptation as an
intermediate outcome variable. Input characteristics were entered as blocks: demographic
characteristics, academic characteristics, psychological well-being, and prior interaction with
teachers. Student-faculty interaction variables were then entered as the environmental variables.
Finally adaptation variables were entered as the dependent/outcome variables. The second series
of regression analyses examined academic outcome as the dependent variables. In addition,
regression analyses identified the specific student-faculty interaction variables that were unique
factors associated with international students’ academic outcome.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 73
Chapter Four: Results
Student Sample Characteristics
The College Student Survey data sample had a total of 289 participants (out of 19,942)
who identified themselves as neither “citizens” nor “green card holders” on the Freshman Survey.
Analyses are based on this sample of participants. Demographic characteristics reported below
are based on valid data only; missing data were excluded. Fifty-four percent was female (n =
157, 54.3%) and 46% was male (n = 132, 45.7%). The majority of students (98.3%, n = 229) was
single, non-native English speakers (67.1%). The modal age of students completing the
Freshman CIRP survey was 18 (38.5%). Respondents answered “Yes/No” on eight separate race
categories. Eighty-eight students (30.4%) identified themselves as Caucasian/White, 84 (29.1%)
as Asian American/Asian, 64 (22.1%) as “Other,” 37 (12.8%) as African/Black, and 22 (7.6%) as
Latino. All other race categories (American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, Mexican American/Chicano, and Puerto Rican) were selected by less than 2% of the
students. This sample represented a diverse group of international students from a range of
racial/ethnic groups. Religious preferences were also diverse, with Roman Catholic and Other
Christian comprising the majority (18.2% and 17.9%, respectively); 7.1% was Islamic, 6.4% was
Hindu, 6.4% was Buddhist, and 5.7% Eastern Orthodox. The modal endorsement was no
religion (22.1%).
Parental education level was high, the mode for fathers was a graduate degree (39.4%);
the mode for mothers was a college degree. Refer to Table 1 for student demographic
characteristics.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 74
Table 1
International Students’ Demographic Characteristics
N Percentage

Gender/Sex Male 131 46
Female 156 54

Race Caucasian/White 84 29.1
Asian American/Asian 64 22.1
African/Black 37 12.8
Other Latino 22 7.6
American Indian/Alaska Native 2 0.7
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3 1.0
Mexican American/Chicano 5 1.7
Puerto Rican 1 0.3
Other 64 22.1

Religion None 62 22.1
Roman Catholic 51 18.2
Other Christian 50 17.9
Islamic 20 7.1
Hindu 18 6.4
Buddhist 18 6.4
Eastern Orthodox 16 5.7

Father’s Education Grammar or Less 9 3.2
Some High School 18 6.5
High School Graduate 30 10.8
Postsecondary 11 4.0
Some College 15 5.4
College Degree 76 27.4
Some Graduate 109 39.4
Graduate Degree 9 3.2

Mother’s Education Grammar or Less 9 3.2
Some High School 13 4.7
High School Graduate 48 17.3
Postsecondary 13 4.7
Some College 30 10.8
College Degree 91 32.9
Some Graduate 14 5.1
Graduate Degree 59 21.3

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 75
Institution Sample
International students in this sample attended school from 27 states, with 12.1% from
California, 8.0% from Massachusetts, 7.6% from Pennsylvania, 6.9% from Florida, 5.5% from
New York, 5.5% from Minnesota, 5.5% from Virginia, and all others under 5.5%. Refer to
Table 2 for distribution of states.
Table 2
International Students’ Distribution of States
State Frequency Percentage
California 35 12.1
Connecticut 12 4.2
Florida 20 6.9
Georgia 6 2.1
Iowa 14 4.8
Idaho 1 .3
Illinois 14 4.8
Indiana 13 4.5
Massachusetts 23 8.0
Maryland 4 1.4
Michigan 11 3.8
Minnesota 16 5.5
Missouri 10 3.5
North Carolina 7 2.4
North Dakota 1 .3
Nebraska 2 .7
New Jersey 1 .3
New York 16 5.5
Ohio 13 4.5
Oklahoma 2 .7
Pennsylvania 22 7.6
South Carolina 1 .3
Texas 10 3.5
Virginia 16 5.5
Vermont 10 3.5
Washington 2 .7
Total 289 100

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 76
The modal type of institutions in this sample of international students was Non-sectarian,
Four Year, Very High Selectivity (21%), followed by Other Religion, Four Year, High
Selectivity (20%) and Non-Sectarian, Four Year High Selectivity (14.5%). All other types of
institutions constituted 0.3–6.6%. Only 5.2% of this sample was from public institutions. Refer
to Table 3 for type of institutions.
Table 3
Type of Institutions Attended
Type of University N Percentage
Public University 4 1.3
Private University 15 5.2
Public 4-Year 11 3.8
Nonsectarian 4-Year 127 43.9
Catholic 4-Year 38 13.2
Other Religion 4-Year 93 32.2
Private 2-Year 1 0.3
Total 289 100

The ethnic / racial diversity of the institutions was also examined. The mean, median,
and modal percentages of full-time non-White undergraduate students in this sample of
institutions were 28%, 23%, and 27%, respectively. The mean, median, and modal percentage of
full-time undergraduate students identified as nonresidential aliens were 5%, 4%, and 14%,
respectively.
Information about faculty diversity was also sought. However, less than half of the data
in this sample had faculty diversity data for their institutions. For institutions with available data
on campus faculty diversity, the mean, median, and modal percentage of non-White faculty was
13%, 13%, and 23%, respectively. Most of the institutions did not have faculty identified as
nonresident alien, (mean = 1.8%, median and mode = 0%). Given the limited details on
institutions, this factor is not further examined in later regression analyses.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 77
Student Input Characteristics
Student input characteristics are essential in the I-E-O model. The student input
characteristics relevant to this study were prior interaction with teachers, psychological well-
being, and precollege academic performance.
Students in this sample also reported a high level of interactions with teachers; 34%
frequently asked teachers for advice; 51.8% occasionally did so. Thirty-seven percent had been
a guest in a teacher’s home. Half of the students indicated that they expected having a “very
good chance” of interacting with faculty in college. About half of the students reported feeling
depressed or overwhelmed occasionally; 7.8% of students reported feeling depressed frequently,
and 19.1% reported feeling overwhelmed frequently.
Most students (95.4%) in this sample had a high school GPA of B- or above. This
variable was categorical data, and the modal GPA is A or A+ (25%). Most students (49.8%) also
rated their academic ability as above average, with only 1.4% self-rating as below average. Their
intellectual self-confidence was also high, with 43.7% self-rating as above average; only 2.4%
rated themselves as below average, and 1% as in the lowest 10%. The overall pattern was similar
to self-rating of academic ability, with about one quarter of the students reporting being average,
and about 40–50% of students rating themselves above average. Consistently about one quarter
(25%) perceived themselves in the top 10%. Due to the high percentage of missing data on SAT
Verbal and Performance Scores (40% of participants) as well as on ACT scores (91% of
participants), these variables were not analyzed. Refer to Table 4 for student input
characteristics.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 78
Table 4
International Student Pre-Entry Input Characteristics
Items N (Percentage)
Not at all Occasionally Frequently
Interaction with Teacher

Asked teacher for advice 40 (14.2%) 146 (51.8%) 96 (34.0%)
Was guest in teacher’s home 176 (62.4%) 88 (31.2%) 18 (6.4%)

Psychological Well Being

Feeling Depressed 107 (37.8%) 154 (54.4%) 22 (7.6%)
Feeling Overwhelmed 71 (24.6%) 157 (54.3%) 54 (18.7%)

Academic Ability

Below Average 4 (1.4%)
Average 65 (22.6%)
Above Average 143 (49.8%)
Top 10% 75 (26.1%)

Intellectual Self-Confidence

Lowest 10%
Below Average 7 (2.4%)
Average 84 (29.4%)
Above Average 125 (43.7%)
Top 10% 67 (23.4%)

High School GPA

A or A+ 68 (25.0%)
A 58 (21.3%)
B+ 57 (21.0%)
B 60 (22.1%)
B- 17 (6.3%)
C+ 6 (2.2%)
C 5 (1.8%)
D 1 (0.4%)

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 79
Student-Faculty Interaction
In this study, the key college environment variable in the I-E-O model is student-faculty
interaction. Students in this sample reported a high level of interaction with faculty (97.6% had
interacted with faculty during office hours, 83.8% had met with faculty outside class and office
hours, and 67.7% had been a guest in a professor’s home). As for the specific types of
interactions with faculty, the frequencies are shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Student-Faculty Interaction
Items Not at all Occasionally Frequently
Encouragement for graduate school 14.9% 42.0% 43.1%
Opportunity to work in research project 26.8% 45.4% 27.9%
Advice about education program 9.6% 54.6% 35.7%
Respect 3.6% 33.5% 63.0%
Opportunity to publish 61.3% 28.7% 10.0%
Emotional support and encouragement 12.9% 52.7% 34.4%
Letter of recommendation 13.6% 49.8% 36.6%
Assistance with study skills 22.9% 51.3% 25.8%
Negative feedback about academic work 44.1% 48.7% 7.5%
Intellectual challenge and stimulation 5.0% 45.9% 49.1%
Opportunity to discuss work outside class 5.0% 44.8% 50.2%
Help in achieving professional goals 16.1% 49.5% 34.4%
Opportunity to apply learning to real
world
9.0% 53.6% 37.4%

Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was employed for exploring and identifying the underlying relationship of
the student-faculty interaction variables to data reduction as well as for generating hypotheses for
subsequent analysis. Initially, the factorability of the 13 student-faculty interaction items was
examined. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.881, indicating the
variables might be caused by underlying factors. The Barlett test of sphericity was also
significant (χ2 (78) = 993.78; p<.00), indicating that the variables were related and suitable for
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 80
structure detection. The diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix were all over .5,
supporting the inclusion of each item in the factor analysis.
Since no specified theoretical underpinning existed for the structure of constructs, principle
component analysis was used. Four components had initial Eigen values above 1, explaining
61% of the variance. The initial Eigen values showed that the first component explained 36.2%
of the variance, the second component 8.9% of the variance, the third component 7.9% of the
variance, and the fourth component 7.7% of the variance. Scree plot also indicated the leveling
off of Eigen values after the first factor. It appeared that one component extracted had a distinct
contribution to the variance, and all the other components had about a similar contribution.
The Rotated Component Matrix in Table 6 provided a better understanding of the
components. The first factor may be best described as advanced academic preparation; it is most
highly correlated with “Encouragement for Graduate School” (.78), “Opportunity to Work in
Research Project” (.65), “Letter of Recommendation” (.65), and “Advice about Education
Program” (.61). The second factor may be described as support and assistance and is most
highly correlated with “Emotional Support and Encouragement” (.79), “Assistance with Study
Skills” (.67), and “Respect” (.59) and “Opportunity to Publish.” The third factor may be
described as learning beyond classroom, which includes the “Opportunity to Discuss
Coursework outside Class” (.81), “Intellectual Challenge and Stimulation” (.70), “Opportunity to
Apply Learning to Real World,” (.61) and “Help in Achieving Professional Goals” (.52). The last
factor is best described by the single item “Negative Feedback about work” (.89).

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 81
Table 6
Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation on Student-
Faculty interaction items
Items
Advanced
Academic
Preparation
Support &
Assistance
Learning
Beyond
Classroom

Negative
Feedback
Encouragement for Graduate School .78 .14 .14 -.10
Opportunity to Work in Research Project .65 .15 .15 .17
Advice about Educational Program .61 .35 .31 -.06
Respect .32 .59 .22 -.26
Opportunity to Publish .26 .54 -.02 .44
Emotional Support & Encouragement .25 .79 .09 -.07
Letter of Recommendation .65 .11 .17 .07
Assistance with Study Skills .04 .67 .35 .16
Negative Feedback about Academic Work .01 -.04 .07 .89
Intellectual Challenge & Stimulation .25 .14 .70 -.03
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework
Outside Class
.21 .04 .81 .10
Help in Achieving Professional Goals .40 .40 .52 -.00
Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real
World
.07 .47 .60 .01
Note: Factor loadings >.50 are in boldface
Reliability Analysis
From the factor analysis, only one component appeared salient. The next step was to
explore the appropriateness of developing a scale score for student-faculty interaction using the
Cronbach’s alpha for reliability analysis. Results indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .83, suggesting
internal consistency. Thus a scale score was developed to measure student-faculty interaction
combining the items. Because “Negative Feedback from Faculty” appeared to be a unique
variable from the factor analysis (and was in the negative direction),” it was not included in the
construction of the scale score. The Cronbach's alpha was .85 without the item, suggesting better
internal consistency. A scale score summing up the 12 items was developed.
Outcome Variables
The outcome variables in this study included 1) acculturative stress as an intermediate
outcome variable, 2) success and satisfaction variables, and 3) academic outcome variables. In
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 82
addition, self-reported success variables were examined as an indicator of adjustment.
Acculturative Stress was compiled from three variables: Felt Lonely or Homesick, Felt
Depressed, and Felt Overwhelmed (Refer to Table 7). The Cronbach's alpha of the three items
was .69, marginally acceptable to form a scale score.
The seven success variables were “Utilizing campus services,” “Understanding Professor
Expectations,” “Developing Effective Study Skills,” “Adjusting to Academic Demands,”
“Managing Time Effectively,” “Getting to Know Faculty,” and “Develop Close Relationships
with students.” Most students reported success, with less than 10% of students endorsing “not
successful.” On all the items except for “Managing Time Effectively,” about 50% of students
endorsed very successful, a strong indicator of positive adjustment. Refer to Table 8 for success
variables. The Cronbach’s alpha of the seven items was .80, acceptable for developing a scale
score.
A few student satisfaction variables also appeared relevant to measuring student outcome.
Satisfaction variables “Overall Quality of Instruction,” “Amount of Contact with Faculty,” and
“Overall College Experience” were examined. Most students reported satisfaction, with less than
5% reporting dissatisfaction. On all the three items, the majority of students reported
satisfied/very satisfied, with 14-16% reporting being neutral. Refer to Table 7 for satisfaction
variables.
The academic outcome variable was GPA, self-rating of academic ability, and intellectual
self-confidence (Refer to Table 7). As compared to the ratings during Freshman Year, the
majority of students’ self-perception remained the same. For perception of academic abilities,
16.9% reported changes in the negative direction, and 23% reported changes in the positive
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 83
direction. For intellectual self-confidence, 18.7% reported changes in the negative direction, and
31.0% in the positive direction.
Table 7
Adaptation, Success and Satisfaction Variables
Variables Ratings
Acculturative Stress Not at all Occasionally Frequently
Felt Lonely or Homesick 22.5% 61.1% 16.5%
Felt Depressed 36.0% 54.2% 9.8%
Felt Overwhelmed 8.1% 60.4% 31.6%

Success Not Some Very
Utilizing Campus Services 4.6% 49.5% 45.9%
Understanding Professor
Expectations
1.8% 38.1% 60.1%
Developing Effective Study
Skills
5.4% 46.4% 48.2%
Adjusting to Academic
Demands
2.5% 38.9% 58.6%
Managing Time Effectively 8.2% 52.7% 39.1%
Getting to know Faculty 5.0% 46.3% 48.8%
Developing Close
Relationships with Students
1.8% 33.8% 64.4%

Satisfaction Can’t rate/
Dissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied Very
Satisfied
Overall Quality of Instruction 4.2% 13.6% 54.2% 28.0%
Amount of Contact with Faculty 1.7% 16.4% 44.1% 37.8%
Interaction with Students 2.4% 16.4% 47.6% 33.9%
Overall College Experience 3.5% 14.5% 51.9% 30.0%

Regression Analysis
A series of regression analyses were employed to explore the I-E-O model. The first
block entered were demographic variables (gender [male/female], parental education level, etc.),
the second block entered were input characteristics (high school GPA, psychological well-being,
etc.), the third block entered were environmental variables studied (student-faculty interaction).
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 84
The first regression analysis employed examined how student-faculty interaction affects
acculturative stress. Demographic variables including gender (male/female), age, native language,
and parental education level (father’s education, mother’s education) were entered in the first
block. The second block included pre-entry input characteristics (Feeling Depressed, Feeling
Stressed) that were most likely to correlate with the outcome variable. Then, the student-faculty
interaction scale score was entered. The outcome variable (dependent variable) was
acculturative stress, created by adding the three variables of psychological well-being (Feeling
Depressed, Feeling Stressed, and Feeling Overwhelmed.) In this analysis, the input
characteristic “Feeling Depressed” was the only significant factor (β = .25, p = .001) impacting
acculturative stress at college exit. Student-faculty interaction was not a significant factor
associated with acculturative stress (β = -.10, p = .106). Acculturative stress was therefore not
entered as an intermediate outcome variable in later analyses.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 85
Table 8
Factors Associated with Acculturative Stress
Variable β t Sig. 95% Cl
(Constant) 6.662 .00 [4.25, 7.82]
Demographics
Gender (Male/Female) -.08 1.26 .21 [-.13, .58]
Age -.04 -.53 .60 [-.18, .11]
Father’s Education .10 1.24 .22 [-.04, .16]
Mother’s Education -.12 -1.5 .14 [-.19, .03]
Religion -.05 -.85 .40 [-.05, .02]
English as Native Language -.11 -1.64 .10 [-.71, .07]
R
2
= .05

Input Characteristics
Felt Depressed .25 3.45 .00* [.25, .93]
Felt Overwhelmed .08 1.07 .29 [-.14, .45]
Asked Teacher for Advice .01 .10 .92 [-.27, .29]
Was Guest in Teacher’s Home -.06 -.94 .35 [-.43, .15]
R
2
= .13

Δ R
2
= .09**
Environment
Student-faculty Interaction (Scale Score) -.10 -1.62 .11 [-.06, .01]
R
2
= .14

Adjusted R
2
= .10
Δ R
2
= .01
Note. N = 239. Cl = Confidence Interval. *p<.05, **p<.01
The second series of regression analysis was employed to examine how student-faculty
interaction impacted international students’ adaptation based on positive indicators such as the
student success variables, and to also explore it as a potential intermediate outcome.
Demographic variables including gender (male/female), age, native language, and parental
education level (father’s education, mother’s education) were entered in the first block. The
second block included pre-entry input characteristics related to student-teacher interaction that
were most likely to correlate with the outcome variable. Then, the student-faculty interaction
scale score was entered. The outcome variable (dependent variable) was the student success
scale score, created by adding the seven variables of student success (Utilizing Campus Services,
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 86
Understanding Profs' Expectations, Developing Effective Study Skills, Adjusting to Academic
Demands, Managing Time Effectively, and, Getting to Know Faculty).
Results indicated that the first two blocks of independent variables (demographic variables and
pre-entry input characteristics) did not have significant impact on student success. Student-
Faculty Interaction Scale Score had a significant impact on the Student Success Scale Score (β
= .46, p <.001). When Student-Faculty Interaction Scale Score was entered, it led to a significant
change in variance (Δ R
2
= .21, p < .001). To further identify the specific student-faculty
interaction variables that would be most relevant to student success, another regression analysis
entering all 13 items on student-faculty interaction was done. Results indicated that there were 3
significant factors associated with student success: “Advice about Education Program” (β = .19,
p = .015), “Opportunity to Discuss Coursework outside Class” (β = .20, p = .006), and
“Opportunity to Apply Learning in Real World,” (β = .20, p = .006). Refer to Table 9 for factors
associated with student success.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 87
Table 9
Factors Associated with Student Success

Student Success Scale Score
Variables β t Sig. 95% Cl
(Constant) 5.27 .00 [5.44, 11.95]
Demographics
Gender (Male/Female) .01 .12 .91 [-.58, .66]
Age .03 .42 .67 [-.20, .31]
Father’s education -.03 -.37 .72 [-.22, .15]
Mother’s education .06 .84 .40 [-.11, .28]
Religion .05 .83 .41 [-.03, .08]
English is Native Language -.00 -.02 .99 [-.68, .67]
R
2
= .02

Input Characteristics
Asked Teacher for Advice .05 .73 .47 [-.31, .67]
Was Guest in Teacher’s Home .10 1.63 .10 [-.09, .93]
R
2
= .04

Δ R
2
= .02
Environment – Student-Faculty Interaction
Items

Encouragement for Graduate School .10 1.44 .15 [-.14, .88]
Opportunity to Work in Research Project -.03 -.38 .70 [-.58, .39]
Advice about Educational Program .19 2.45 .02* [.16, 1.47]
Respect .00 .03 .98 [-.67, .69]
Opportunity to Publish -.09 -1.46 .15 [-.85, .13]
Emotional Support & Encouragement -.01 -.18 .85 [-.66, .55]
Letter of Recommendation .13 1.92 .06 [-.01, 1.07]
Assistance with Study Skills -.02 -.26 .80 [-.61, .47]
Negative Feedback about Academic Work -.05 -.73 .47 [-.70, .32]
Intellectual Challenge & Stimulation -.03 -.40 .69 [-.77, .51]
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside
Class
.20 2.76 .01** [.25, 1.49]
Help in Achieving Professional Goals .07 .87 .38 [-.33, .85]
Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real
World
.20 2.77 .01** [.25, 1.46]
R
2
= .32

Adjusted R
2

= .26
Δ R
2
= .29**
N = 241. Cl = Confidence interval. *p <.05, **p <.01.
Next, regression analyses were conducted to examine how student-faculty interactions
impact international student’s academic outcome. College GPA was the first dependent outcome
variable. Results indicated that being female (β = .13, p = .036) and having English as native
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 88
language (β= .13, p = .031) were two significant demographic factors associated with academic
outcome. As expected, students’ high school GPA was a strong factor associated with college
GPA (β = .45, p < .001). Student-faculty interaction at college (scale score) was also a
significant factor associated with GPA (β = .16, p = .008). When the first block of demographic
variables was entered, R
2
change accounted for only 4% of the variance. When the pre-entry
input characteristics (including high school GPA) were entered, the model accounted for 22% of
the variance. Lastly student-faculty interaction added significantly to the model but accounted
for only 2% of the variance.
To further identify the specific student-faculty interaction variables that would be most
relevant to College GPA, another regression analysis was conducted entering all 13 items on
student-faculty interaction. Results indicated that there were two positive factors associated with
College GPA: “Encouragement for Graduate School” (β = .15, p = .031) and “Letter of
Recommendation” (β = .16, p = .017), and one negative factor: “Negative Feedback from
Faculty” (β = -.16, p = .007). Refer to Table 10 for specific factors associated with college GPA.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 89
Table 10
Factors Associated with College GPA (Demographic Variables, Pre-entry Characteristics and
Student-Faculty Interaction Variables)

College Grade Point Average
Variables β t Sig. 95% Cl
(Constant) 2.80 .01 [.51, 2.91]
Demographics
Gender (Male/Female) .08 1.41 .16 [-.06, .35]
Age .11 1.85 .07 [-.01, .17]
Father’s education .09 1.21 .23 [-.03, .11]
Mother’s education -.03 -.42 .67 [-.07, .05]
Religion .04 .69 .49 [-.01, .03]
English is Native Language .11 1.82 .07 [-.02, .44]
R
2
=

.04
Input Characteristics
Asked Teacher for Advice -.07 -1.08 .28 [-.25, .07]
Was Guest in Teacher’s Home .07 1.14 .26 [-.07, .27]
High School GPA .41 6.76 .00** [.18, .32]
R
2
= .26
Δ R
2
= .22
Environment – Student-Faculty Interaction
Items

Encouragement for Graduate School .15 2.17 .03* [.02, .36]
Opportunity to Work in Research Project .06 .85 .40 [-.09, .23]
Advice about Educational Program -.04 -.47 .64 [-.26, .16]
Respect .08 1.16 .25 [-.09, .36]
Opportunity to Publish .02 .26 .79 [-.14, .18]
Emotional Support & Encouragement -.10 -1.40 .16 [-.34, .06]
Letter of Recommendation .16 2.40 .02* [.04, .40]
Assistance with Study Skills -.12 -1.60 .11 [-.32, .03]
Negative Feedback about Academic Work -.17 -2.7 .01* [-.39, -.06]
Intellectual Challenge & Stimulation -.01 -.11 .91 [-.22, .19]
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside
Class
-.05 -.70 .49 [-.28, .13]
Help in Achieving Professional Goals .03 .41 .68 [-.16, .24]
Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real
World
.10 1.32 .19 [-.07, .34]
R
2
=

.38
Adjusted R
2

= .31
Δ R
2
= .12
N = 229. Cl = Confidence interval. *p <.05 **p <.01

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 90
Self-rating of academic ability was the second academic outcome variable. Regression
analysis indicated that the only significant demographic factor was age (β = .14, p = .027). As
expected, high school GPA (β = .20, p = .003) and self-rating of academic ability at college entry
(β = .39, p = .000), were significant input factors associated with self-rating of academic ability.
Student-faculty Interaction Scale Score was also a significant factor (β = .12, p = .045). The R
2
change resulted from entering student-faculty interaction was small, accounting for only 1% of
the variance (Δ R
2
= .01, p = .045).
In the follow-up regression analysis (refer to Table 11), all 13 student-faculty interaction
variables were entered to identify relevant student-faculty interaction variables associated with
self-rating of academic ability. The two significant student-faculty variables associated were
“Letter of Recommendation” (β = .18, p = .008) and “Negative Feedback about Academic Work”
(β = -.15, p = .012). Refer to Table 11 for factors associated with self-rating of academic ability.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 91
Table 11
Factors Associated with Self-Rating of Academic Ability (Demographic Variables, Pre-entry
Characteristics and Student-Faculty Interaction Variables)

Self-Rating of Academic Ability
Variables β t Sig. 95% Cl
(Constant) 3.10 .00 [.57, 2.58]
Demographics
Gender (Male/Female) -.10 -1.67 .10 [-.31, .03]
Age .13 2.23 .03 [.01, .15]
Mother’s education -.01 -.10 .92 [-.06, .05]
Mother’s education .03 .45 .65 [-.04, .06]
Religion -.01 -.21 .84 [-.02, .01]
English is Native Language .07 1.08 .28 [-.08, .28]
R
2
=

.03
Input Characteristics
Asked Teacher for Advice .03 .54 .59 [-.10, .17]
Was Guest in Teacher’s Home -.04 -.60 -.55 [-.18, .10]
High School GPA .14 2.12 .04* [.01, .14]
Self-Rate Academic Ability (at entry) .36 5.28 .00** [.23, .50]
R
2
= .29
Δ R
2
= .26**
Environment – Student-Faculty Interaction
Items

Encouragement for Graduate School .13 1.86 .07 [-.01, .27]
Opportunity to Work in Research Project .00 .03 .98 [-.13, .13]
Advice about Educational Program .06 .72 .47 [-.11, .24]
Respect -.05 -.75 .46 [-.26, .12]
Opportunity to Publish .00 .01 .99 [-.13, .13]
Emotional Support & Encouragement -.09 -1.18 .24 [-.26, .06]
Letter of Recommendation .18 2.67 .01* [.05, .34]
Assistance with Study Skills -.09 -1.22 .22 [-.23, .06]
Negative Feedback about Academic Work -.15 -2.54 .01* [-.31, -.04]
Intellectual Challenge & Stimulation .03 .44 .66 [-.13, .21]
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside
Class
.09 1.28 .20 [-.06, .28]
Help in Achieving Professional Goals .02 .27 .79 [-.14, .18]
Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real
World
-.04 -.56 .57 [-.22, .12]
R
2
=

.39
Adjusted R
2

= .32
Δ R
2
= .10**
Note. N = 233. Cl = Confidence Interval. *p <.05, **p<.01

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 92
Intellectual self-confidence was the third dependent outcome variable. Results from the
initial regression analysis indicated that gender (male/female) (β = -.13, p = .03) and age (β = .13,
p = .04) were significant demographic variables associated with intellectual self-confidence.
Average high school grade (β = .21, p = .002) and self-rating of intellectual self-confidence (β
= .38, p = .000) at college entry were, indeed, significant input characteristics that were
associated with intellectual self-confidence at exit. Student-faculty interaction scale score was
then entered into the regression equation, the change of R
2
was .03, (p = .003); it was a
significant (β = .17, p = .003) factor associated with intellectual self-confidence.
In the follow-up regression analysis, all 13 items of student-faculty interaction were
entered to identify variables that were impactful on intellectual self-confidence. The only
significant student-faculty interaction item predicting intellectual self-confidence was
“Encouragement for Graduate School” (β = .22, p = .002). Refer to Table 12 for factors
associated with intellectual self-confidence.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 93
Table 12
Factors Associated with Intellectual Self-Confidence (Demographic Variables, Pre-entry
Characteristics and Student-Faculty Interaction Variables)
Self-Rating of Intellectual Self Confidence
Variables β t Sig. 95% Cl
(Constant) 2.08 .04 [.06, 2.29]
Demographics
Gender (Male/Female)

-.14

-2.4

.02*

[-.43, -.04]
Age
Mother’s Education
.13
-.11
2.05
-1.46
.04*
.15
[.00, .17]
[-.11, .02]
Father’s Education .02 .33 .75 [-.05, .07]
Religion .04 .59 .56 [-.01, .02]
English as Native Language .02 .34 .74 [-.17, .25]
R
2
= .05
Input Characteristics
Asked Teacher for Advice .05 .80 .42 [-.09, .21]
Was Guest in Teacher’s Home .09 1.61 .11 [-.03, .29]
High School Average Grade .21 3.30 .00** [.05, .19]
Intellectual Self-Confidence (at entry) .35 5.74 .00** [.22, .46]
R
2
= .29
Δ R
2
= .24**
Environment – Student-Faculty
Interaction Items

Encouragement for Graduate School .21 .30 .00** [.09, .41]
Opportunity to Work in Research
Project
.08 1.19 .23 [-.06, .24]
Advice about Educational Program .08 1.00 .32 [-.10, .30]
Respect -.01 -.15 .88 [-.23, .20]
Opportunity to Publish -.06 -.90 .37 [-.22, .08]
Emotional Support & Encouragement .03 .41 .68 [-.15, .22]
Letter of Recommendation -.03 -.39 .70 [-.20, .13]
Assistance with Study Skills -.03 -.36 .72 [-.20, .14]
Negative Feedback about Academic
Work
-.07 -1.18 .24 [-.25, .06]
Intellectual Challenge & Stimulation -.05 -.69 .49 [-.26, .13]
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework
Outside Class
-.04 -.55 .59 [-.25, .14]
Help in Achieving Professional Goals -.04 -.44 .66 [-.23, .15]
Opportunity to Apply Learning to
Real World
.10 1.32 .19 [-.06, .32]
R
2
= .37
Adjusted R
2

= .30
Δ R
2
= .08*
Note. N = 233. Cl = Confidence Interval. *p <.05, **p<.01

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 94
To further examine if success variables (positive indicators of adaptation) are
intermediate outcome variables for students’ academic outcome, block regression analyses were
conducted. First demographic characteristics including sex, age, parental education and native
language were entered. Then pre-entry characteristics such as High school GPA, Self-Perceived
Academic Ability, Intellectual Self-Confidence were entered. The next blocks were the Student-
faculty Interaction Scale score and the Student Success Scale score .The dependent variable was
College GPA. Results indicated that student success was indeed an intermediate outcome
variable. Refer to Table 13 for block regression analyses findings regarding factors associated
with academic outcome. Student input characteristics at entry such as High School GPA
accounted for 24% of the variance. Student faculty interaction and student success, while added
to the R
2
Change, added only 2% and 6% to the variance respectively.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 95
Table 13
Factors (Demographic Characteristics, Input Characteristics, Student-Faculty Interaction, and
Student Success) Associated with College GPA

College Grade Point Average
Variables β t Sig. 95% Cl
Constant .33 .74 [-.99, 1.39]
Demographics
Gender (Male/Female) .12 2.14 .03 [.02, .42]
Age .10 1.66 .10 [-.01, .16]
Mother’s Education .04 .57 .57 [-.05, .08]
Father’s Education -.05 -.70 .48 [-.08, .04]
Religion .03 .59 .56 [-.01, .02]
English is Student's Native Language .12 2.09 .04 [.01, .44]
R
2
= .40
Input
Asked Teacher for Advice -.10 -1.75 .08 [-.30, .02]
Was Guest in Teacher’s Home .05 .89 .37 [-.09, .24]
Average High School Grades .41 6.16 .00** [.17, .32]
Academic Ability .08 1.19 .24 [-.07, .28]
Intellectual Self-Confidence .01 .08 .93 [-.12, .14]
R
2
= .28
ΔR
2
= .24**

Environment
Student-Faculty Interaction Scale Score .02 .37 .71 [-.02, .03]
R
2
= .30
ΔR
2
= .03**
Intermediate Outcome
Student-Success Scale Score .30 4.7 .00** [.06, .14]
R
2
= .37
Adjusted R
2
= .33
ΔR
2
= .07**
Note. N = 229. Cl=Confidence Interval. *p<.05, **p<.01
A few additional regression analyses were conducted using other student success and
student satisfaction as the outcome variables to further examine the significance of various
student faculty variables on international student’s success and satisfaction. For the success
variable “Getting to Know faculty,” significant student-faculty interaction factors associated
were (1) “Respect” (β = .13, p = .051), (2) “Letter of Recommendation” (β = .16, p = .013), and
(3) “Opportunity to Discuss Coursework outside Class” (β = .23, p = .001). For the success
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 96
variable “Adjusting to Academic Demands,” the significant student-faculty interaction factors
associated were (1) Advice about Educational Program” (β = .21, p = .006), (2) “Letter of
Recommendation” (β = .16, p = .014), (3) Opportunity to Discuss Coursework outside Class, (β
= 3.11, p = .002) and (4) Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real World (β = .16, p = .027).
For satisfaction with Overall Quality of Instruction, the significant student-faculty
interactions were “Encouragement for Graduate School” (β = -.16, p = .024) and “Letter of
Recommendation” (β = .34, p = .000). For satisfaction with Overall College Experience, the
only significant student-faculty interactions factor was “Opportunity to Publish” (β = -.13, p<.04),
and it was a negative factor. Refer to Table 14 for a summary of student-faculty interaction
factors associated with various student outcomes.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 97
Table 14
Student-Faculty Interaction Factors Associated with Student Outcomes
Outcome Variables Significant Student-Faculty Interaction Factors

Adaptation

Acculturative Stress

None

Student Success (Scale Score)

Advice about Education Program (+)
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside Class (+)
Opportunity to Apply Learning in the Real World (+)
Academic Outcome

College GPA

Encouragement for Graduate School (+)
Letter of Recommendation (+)
Negative feedback from Faculty (-)

Self-Rate Academic Ability

Letter of Recommendation (+)
Negative feedback from Faculty (-)

Intellectual Self Confidence

Encouragement for Graduate School (+)

Student Satisfaction

Overall Quality of Instruction Encouragement of Graduate School (+)
Letter of Recommendation (+)

Overall College Experience Opportunity to Publish (-)

Student Success

Getting to Know Faculty Respect (+)
Letter of Recommendation (+)
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside Class (+)

Adjustment to Academic
Demands

Advice about Education program (+)
Letter of Recommendation (+)
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside Class (+)
Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real World(+)

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 98
Chapter Five: Discussion
The current study set out to answer three research questions: First, how do international
students interact with faculty, and what are the frequencies and types of contact? Second, how
does student-faculty interaction impact international students’ adaptation? Third, how does
student-faculty interaction impact international students’ academic outcome? This chapter is
organized to discuss these three research questions.
The International Student Sample
This dataset provided a sample of international students from different campuses across
the United States. International students constituted 1.4% of this undergraduate student sample.
The National Center on Education Statistics (NCES, 2008) has estimated that 3.3–3.6% of
students are international, about 40% of which are undergraduate students (IIE, 2007). Therefore,
1.4% of this sample matched the statistical representation of the international student population.
Demographic variables indicated that this sample consisted mostly of single and non-
native English speakers. Ethnic/racial background was diverse. According to NCES (2008),
Asian students comprised 59% of total international enrollment. In this sample, a higher
percentage of students (30.4%) self-identified as Caucasian; Asian students comprised only
29.1%. Religious preference also reflects diversity. A high percentage (36%) of this population
indicated a preference for western religion, such as Roman Catholic and “Other Christian.” The
percentages of Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus were much lower.
International students in this sample were from 27 states; 12.1% was from California, and
8.0% was from Massachusetts—a finding that differs from Chow and Marcus’s (2007) report,
which indicated high concentrations of enrollment in California and New York, clustering in
areas with a large international student or immigrant population from their home country. The
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 99
mean and median international student population on campus was 5% and 4%, while the mode
was 14%, indicating some clustering in institutions. International students in this sample were
mostly from highly selective institutions, the majority of which had student populations that were
about one quarter non-White. As such, one may conclude that international students in this
sample were diverse but not necessarily representative of the international student population in
the United States.
Less than half of the institutions in the current dataset had institutional data on campus
faculty diversity available. From the sample of institutions that had faculty diversity data, the
institutions had an average of 13% non-White faculty. About half (51%) of international
students attended colleges/universities without any faculty self-identified as nonresident alien.
The average percentage of nonresident alien faculty was 1%, with the median and mode at 0%.
One explanation for this finding is that international faculty members are likely to have become
permanent residents to be employed full time in the US. However, faculty members who were
initially international students or who have an international background are likely to have an
impact on a campus’s institutional culture. Collecting such data would be beneficial to further
examination of how institutional culture may affect international students’ adaptation and
academic development.
Student Input Characteristics
International students in this sample were from families with high education attainment
levels. The modal education for fathers was a graduate degree, and the modal education for
mothers was a college degree. This sample of international students may have had a rather
privileged background, especially given that many local racial/ethnic minority students are first
generation college students. The dataset for this international student sample did not include
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 100
country of origin. Otherwise, country of origin may shed light on whether international students
in the US are mostly from the economically and educationally elite group in their home country.
International students in this sample had strong academic preparation. They had high pre-
entry GPAs, and rated their academic ability and intellectual self-confidence as above average.
Only 2% of the students rated their academic ability and intellectual self-confidence as below
average. As for psychological well-being, about half of the sample reported feeling depressed or
overwhelmed occasionally; 7.8% of students reported feeling depressed frequently; and 19.1%
reported feeling overwhelmed frequently. The data did not specify whether these pre-entry
variables referred to experiences in the US or in their home countries.
The majority of international students (85%) had high levels of interaction with teachers.
About half of them entered college with the expectation that they would be interacting with
faculty frequently. These pre-entry characteristics were noteworthy; as such expectations are
likely to impact their interaction with faculty as college students.
In summary, it is important to note that this sample of international students was
academically very well prepared and intellectually self-confident. They were mostly enrolled in
private and highly selective institutions. Their parents are well educated and they may be elitist
from their home country. As such, a note of caution is that the findings from the study may not
be generalizable to all international students in U.S. and external validity is limited.
Student-Faculty Interaction
The first research question attempted to answer the following question: How do
international students interact with faculty, and what are the frequencies and types of contact?
Similar to Zhao, Kuh, and Carini’s (2005) study on international students, which utilized data
from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the current sample of international
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 101
students reported a high level of interaction with faculty on most of the items. The opportunity to
publish was the only type of interaction that the majority of students (61.3%) reported not having
experienced. For other items, the majority of students reported having some to frequent
interaction with faculty.
Kim and Sax’s (2009) and Cole’s (2010) research indicated that student-faculty
interactions might be specific to racial groups. This study sought to understand the nature of
student-faculty interaction in this international student sample. To this end, factor analyses were
employed to identify the underlying relationships of the student-faculty interaction variables. The
results showed that one component had a distinct contribution to the variance (36%), with all the
other components having a much smaller contribution (7–8%). Reliability analysis indicated that
the measure including all 13 student-faculty interaction items was a reliable measure; thus a scale
score was developed for later analyses.
In the factor analysis, when factors were rotated, four distinct factors were present. The
first factor is best described as advanced academic preparation, which is most highly correlated
with “Encouragement for Graduate School,” “Opportunity to Work in Research Project,” “Letter
of Recommendation,” and “Advice about Education Program.” The second factor is best
described as support and assistance and is most highly correlated with “Emotional Support and
Encouragement,” “Assistance with Study Skills,” and “Respect and Opportunity to Publish.”
“Negative Feedback about Academic Work” stands alone as a unique third factor. The fourth
factor may be described as learning beyond classroom, and includes the items “Opportunity to
Discuss Coursework outside Class,” “Intellectual Challenge and Stimulation,” “Opportunity to
Apply Learning to Real World,” and “Help in Achieving Professional Goals.”
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 102
When compared to Cole’s (2010) study on ethnic minority students, this study’s sample
had a high composition of Asian students (about 30%). Similarities with Cole’s findings were
that “Negative Feedback from Faculty” was a distinct factor; research relationships also appeared
to be important in this sample of international students.
International Student Adaptation
The second research question sought to explore how student-faculty interaction affected
international students’ adaptation. Compared to pre-entry psychological characteristics, a higher
portion of students reported being occasionally overwhelmed (60.4% vs. 55.7%) and frequently
overwhelmed (31.6% vs. 19.1%), whereas fewer students reported not being overwhelmed at all
(8.1% vs. 25.2%). The data suggested that college life might be overwhelming for international
students. Students’ self-report on the variable “Feeling Depressed” was quite similar to pre-entry
report, with little change. Feeling depressed may be a more unwavering psychological well-
being variable, whereas feeling overwhelmed may be more situational. Student service
professionals would still need to be aware that about one-tenth of international students reported
frequently feeling depressed and about one-sixth of them reported frequently feeling homesick.
Early screening identifying those with pre-entry characteristics at risk of experiencing depression
would be particularly helpful.
A composite variable “Acculturative Stress” was composed, averaging three variables
(Lonely/Homesick, Feeling Depressed, and Feeling Overwhelmed). Six percent of the student
sample reported frequently experiencing these three items. Notably, the majority of students
(94%) adapted well. Research has often focused on international students’ adjustment difficulties.
Acculturative stress may be considered a negative indicator on adjustment. This study found that
the majority of international students adjusted well. Block regression analyses were conducted
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 103
to examine whether student-faculty interaction predicted acculturative stress. Input
characteristics were entered as blocks: demographic characteristics, academic characteristics,
psychological characteristics, and prior interaction with teachers. The aggregated student-faculty
interaction variable (scale score) was then entered. The composite variable acculturative stress
was the dependent/outcome variable. In this analysis, pre-entry psychological characteristics
were the only significant factors identified as predicting acculturative stress. Student-faculty
interaction was not associated with acculturative stress. Apparently international students’ pre-
entry psychological well-being may be more relevant to their subsequent adjustment. Interaction
with faculty did not appear to have an impact on adjustment.
Acculturative stress may be considered a negative indicator of adjustment, whereas
student reports of successful adjustment may be considered a positive indicator. International
students in this sample reported high levels of adjustment in all seven student success variables,
with about half of them endorsing “very successful” in these items. The two items related to
interaction with faculty (“Understanding Professors’ Expectations” and “Getting to Know
Faculty” were particularly positive: more than 60% of the students reported being very
successful in understanding professors’ expectations, and only 1.8% reported not being
successful in understanding professors’ expectations. Only about 5% reported not being
successful in getting to know faculty. International students generally reported positive
adjustments; therefore the acculturative stress or distress model might not be the most relevant to
the majority of international students. The stereotype of the maladjusted international student
may not be the reality. The student success variables indicating student adaptation were used as
the outcome variable to examine the impact of student-faculty interactions on the positive
indicators of adjustment. The current study also provides preliminary support that student
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 104
success may be considered an intermediate outcome variable. Student-faculty interaction impacts
student success, which in turns impact academic outcome. However since both student success
and academic outcome are both student outcome variables. The potential intermediate effects
need to be further examined in future research studies.
Regression analyses identified the student-faculty interaction variables that predicted the
relevant success variables. For the success variable “Getting to Know Faculty,” significant
student-faculty interaction factors associated were: (a) “Respect,” (b) “Letter of
Recommendation,” and (c) “Opportunity to Discuss Coursework outside Class.” These three
items predicted the variable “Getting to Know Faculty.” For the success variable “Adjusting to
Academic Demands,” the significant student-faculty interaction factors associated were (a)
“Advice about Educational Program,” (b) “Letter of Recommendation,” (c) “Opportunity to
Discuss Coursework outside Class,” and (d) “Opportunity to Apply Learning to Real World.”
Student satisfaction may also be considered a positive indicator of adjustment. The
overall satisfaction of international students in this sample was high on the four selected
variables: overall quality of instruction, amount of contact with faculty, interaction with students,
and overall college experience. Few students were dissatisfied (3.5% or less) in each of the
items. More than 80% of students reported being satisfied or very satisfied. The researcher hopes
that the current study redresses the dearth of literature on international student satisfaction by
concluding that the population of international students studied herein was generally very
satisfied with the college experience.
Regression analyses were also employed to identify the student-faculty interactions that
would lead to student satisfaction on the four selected indicators. For satisfaction with “Overall
Quality of Instruction,” the significant student-faculty interactions were “Encouragement for
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 105
Graduate School” and “Letter of Recommendation.” These two items predicted academic
outcome as well as overall satisfaction with quality of instruction. One explanation is that
international students are highly motivated to pursue advanced academic studies; therefore
having positive student-faculty interactions on these items impacted satisfaction levels with the
overall quality of instruction. For satisfaction with “Overall College Experience,” the only
significant but negative factor was “Opportunity to Publish.” Although it is a great privilege and
opportunity, publishing with faculty is strenuous, and demands much time, effort, and academic
rigor. Students who do not have such opportunity may actually have a more enjoyable and
satisfying college experience in general.
Impact on Academic Outcome
The third research question attempted to find out how student-faculty interaction
impacted international students’ academic outcome. The three outcome variables examined were
(a) grade point average (GPA), (b) self-perception of one’s academic ability, and (c) intellectual
self-confidence. For perceptions of one’s academic abilities, 60.1% of students did not make any
changes from the self-report in freshman year, 16.9% reported negative changes, and 23%
reported positive changes. As for intellectual self-confidence, 49.3% of students did not change
in self-perception, 18.7% reported changes in a negative direction, and 31.0% reported changes
in a positive direction. International students’ self-perception of academic abilities remained
rather steady; specifically, more students changed toward the positive (rather than the negative)
direction.
Because student-faculty interactions did not appear to be a factor associated with
acculturative stress, the variable was not entered into the regression analyses predicting academic
outcome as an intermediate outcome variable. Student-faculty interaction (aggregated scale score)
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 106
was found to be a significant factor of all three academic outcome variables: Grade Point
Average (GPA), self-rating of academic ability, and intellectual self-confidence.
The initial block regression analysis indicated that being female and having English as a
native language were two significant demographic factors associated with GPA. As expected, a
student’s high school GPA was a strong pre-entry characteristic predictive of college GPA.
Student-faculty interaction at college was a significant factor associated with GPA. The 13
different variables were then entered into another regression analysis to identify the specific
faculty-student interaction variables that predicted GPA. Results indicated that “Encouragement
for Graduate School” and “Letter of Recommendation” predicted GPA, whereas negative
feedback from faculty inversely predicted GPA. These three factors were the student-faculty
variables that contributed to GPA outcome.
When self-rating of academic ability was used as an outcome variable, the only
significant demographic factor associated was age. As expected, high school GPA and self-rating
of academic ability at college entry were significant factors associated with self-rating of
academic ability at exit. Student-faculty interaction (the aggregated scale score) was also a
significant associated with self-rating of academic ability. When all 13 student-faculty
interaction variables were entered into the regression analysis, the two significant factors
associated were “Letter of Recommendation” and “Negative Feedback about Academic Work.”
When intellectual self-confidence was the dependent variable, student gender
(male/female) was again a significant demographic factor. Average high school GPA and self-
rating of intellectual self-confidence at college entry were significant input characteristics
predicting intellectual self-confidence at graduation. The student-faculty interaction scale score
was again a significant factor. In the follow-up regression analysis entering all 13 items of
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 107
student-faculty interaction, the only significant item predicting intellectual self-confidence was
“Encouragement for Graduate School.” From the regression analyses, “Encouragement for
Graduate School and “Letter of Recommendation” were two very important positive factors
associated with academic outcome, whereas “Negative Feedback on Academic Work” was a
negative factor.
The literature has consistently supported the importance of student-faculty interactions.
Yet research studies exploring the impact of such interactions for international students are few.
Results confirmed that student-faculty interactions are important to international students. First,
international students have high expectations for interaction with teachers in their college life.
Second, international students report frequent interactions with faculty in various forms. Third,
student-faculty interaction had a significant impact on different indicators of student success,
student satisfaction, and student academic outcome. On self-report measures of academic
outcome, such as intellectual self-confidence, self-perception of academic ability, as well as of
objective measure of academic outcome, such as GPA, student faculty interaction was a
significant factor. Fourth, findings indicated that student-faculty interactions pertaining to
preparation for advanced academic studies/graduate studies was particularly important to
international students. Receiving encouragement for graduate school and getting a letter of
recommendation were two very practical concerns for this population. They are key factors
associated with academic outcome as well as student satisfaction of the overall quality of
instruction in college.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 108
Limitations of the Present Study
Few studies have investigated student-faculty interactions among international students.
This study provided exploratory data regarding the impact of student-faculty interactions on
student outcome. However, the study had several limitations.
First, the representativeness of the current sample could be questioned. In the current
study, students were identified as international students if they did not identify themselves as
citizens or permanent residents. Some of the students may have been another unknown status;
they may not have been international students officially on a student visa. The data collected
were obtained from the HERI dataset. Whereas institutions participating in the HERI study were
diverse, the representativeness of the sample of international students could not be established.
International students represented different states; however, they were not necessarily
representative of the total international student sample in the US. International students in this
sample were mostly enrolled in private and highly selective institutions. Findings from this study
may not be generalizable to the larger international student community. To correct this
methodological limitation, future studies would require the application of sampling weights to
statistically control for the sampling limitations.
Second, there were limitations on the conclusions drawn related to student outcome. This
study sought to explore the impact of student-faculty interactions on academic outcome. The
longitudinal nature of the studies allowed for an examination of student-faculty interactions
using the I-E-O model. Student input characteristics at college entry could be controlled
statistically in the analysis; however, the student-faculty interaction data and other outcome data
(student adjustment/adaptation, academic outcome, student success, and student satisfaction)
were collected at the same time and in the graduating year. Therefore, the data did not fully
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 109
establish the predictive nature of student-faculty interactions. Further study exploring student-
faculty interaction patterns in the freshman and junior year, and how such interaction impacts
outcome at exit, may be beneficial.
Third, the current study only provided preliminary data on student-faculty interactions for
international students. Whereas the positive impact of student-faculty interactions was supported,
no qualitative information was acquired regarding student-faculty interactions for international
students. Research has indicated that racial/ethnic diversity and campus culture (Cole 2010; Kim
& Sax, 2009, Cole & Griffin, 2013) may have a significant impact; however, the quantitative
data in this study did not examine the complexity of how racial/ethnic/cultural factors may affect
student-faculty interaction in the sample of international students. Future studies may need to
explore these essential factors. Qualitative studies of international students’ perceptions of
student-faculty interactions and their academic outcome would be particularly valuable.
Examining faculty perceptions of international students may also be important.
Implications for Future Research
As discussed in the previous section, findings from the current study were considered
preliminary. Future studies should examine international students from a variety of national
datasets, such as those collected by National Center of Education Statistics, which provides
official data from institutions. Datasets that clearly identify international students may be more
appropriate in establishing the representativeness of international student populations in given
studies. Data from other studies such as National Survey of Student Engagement could also be
utilized to examine student-faculty interaction variables from a range of perspectives.
Prospective studies tracking international students’ development in their college years
would be insightful. The current study attempted to examine acculturation/adjustment issues;
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 110
however, the data were collected at exit. Examining student adjustment issues in the first year
would be more appropriate. Data collected at that point may be predictive of later academic
outcome and student success and satisfaction at exit. Current longitudinal datasets may allow for
these prospective studies. In particular, a positive approach identifying factors related to
successful adjustment and adaptation may be better than a maladjustment framework
emphasizing acculturative stress.
Qualitative studies involving in-depth interviews of international students would be
particularly important in understanding their experiences interacting with faculty. Studies of
international students have explored relevant themes such as language/cultural barriers
racial/ethnic issues, religion, and others. These factors may impact student-faculty interaction
and should be explored in qualitative studies.
Cole and Griffin’s (2013) literature review pointed to the fact that theoretical models of
student-faculty relationship have not been well researched, especially with racial/ethnic minority
students and faculty. Similarly, research efforts on international students have also been
divergent and disparate, thus findings cannot be systematized for theoretical consistency
(Pedersen, 1991). There are beginning exploration of social exchange frameworks, socialization
and social learning theory in the study of student-faculty interaction (Cole & Griffin, 2013).
These theoretical frameworks should be explored with the international student population as
well. The acculturation model focusing on international student maladjustment may not be
appropriate for the majority of the international student population. A paradigm shift adopting a
positive growth and developmental model would be more appropriate for the international
student population.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 111
As Cole and Griffin (2013) critiqued, research studies on student-faculty interaction have
rarely focused on the extent, nature and outcomes of these encounters from the faculty
perspective. There are currently very few studies on faculty perspectives on international
students. Do they welcome international students and see them as integral members in the US
higher education system or as those taking away resources from local students? How do faculty
members interact with students’ whose native language is not English and may be less
communicative in and outside of classroom? Faculty perspectives are also shaped by
institutional culture and policies, therefore systematically examining campus culture and policies
that directly impact international students would also be important in understanding this
population.
Implications for Student Service Professionals
This study’s findings have relevant implications for student service professionals working
with international students. First, student service professionals need to recognize the unique
identity of international students. It is essential to appreciate and acknowledge their country of
origin. Very often international students’ national identity is subsumed under racial/ethnic
identity. Many international students may have a strong national identity but not a racial/ethnic
identity. A student from Nigeria may be very passionate about his/her national identity as
Nigerian but can hardly identify with being “black” on a U.S. college campus. Campus activities
for international students should always recognize and celebrate the diversity of national origins.
Student service professionals working with international students should also be sensitive to their
unique cultural background beyond national identity and avoid stereotyping. A student from
India, for example, may have a rich linguistic, cultural and religious heritage that cannot be
captured in the national identity. In addition, while “international student” is a relevant group
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 112
identity, it should not wipe out the individual’s national identity. Demographic data collection
should always include an option for international students to identify themselves as international
and to state their country of origin. Even though research reports may need to conceal individual
identity to protect confidentiality, there should always be an opportunity for international
students to state their national identity.
Second, findings from the demographic and input characteristics from this study suggest
that many international students are from a highly selective group in their home country. Their
parents are well educated; they are academically well prepared and have a very positive
academic self-concept. These international students are often from an elitist background in their
own country and may hold high expectations for their college education experiences. Student
service professionals may need to be aware of such expectations and provide them with a
realistic picture of campus life in U.S.
Third, this study’s findings challenge the acculturative stress model in conceptualizing
international students’ adjustment. It is likely that only a relatively small portion of students
suffers from maladjustment to the extent requiring mental health intervention. Whereas
university counseling centers should provide services to international students with such needs,
attention should also be devoted to students who may adapt rather quickly, as this population
may have different service needs. It is particularly essential that student service professionals do
not stereotype international students as having adjustment difficulties. Findings from this study
suggest that most international students adapt well and report success. It is therefore more
appropriate to normalize the adjustment process and adopt a positive approach to facilitate
success in adaptation. It may be more helpful to highlight the factors that predict college success
and facilitate the development of such skills or application of such adjustment strategies.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 113
Fourth, a paradigm shift adopting a positive growth and developmental model may be
more appropriate for the international student population. Applying theoretical frameworks such
as social exchange, social learning and socialization model may be more useful than the mental
health model. Researchers and student service professionals may need to further explore a
positive theoretical approach that facilities growth and development among international students.
Such practice may include designing extracurricular activities and campus programs that
facilitate international students’ language and culture adjustment, interaction with students and
faculty, and preparation for advanced graduate studies. This would require a willingness and
readiness to address international students’ specific needs even if there are only “a handful” of
them in the program.
Fifth, student service professionals can play an important role in facilitating student-
faculty interaction. The current study provides preliminary findings on student-faculty
interaction among international students. International students expect high levels of interaction
with faculty. They also seek for interaction opportunities that prepare them for graduate studies
and entry into the professional fields. One may summarize that respect from faculty,
encouragement for graduate studies, receiving a letter of recommendation and opportunities to
discuss coursework outside class from faculty are important student-faculty interactions that
impact international students’ outcome.
Cole and Griffins (2013) advocate that research on student-faculty interaction should not
be limited to the students’ perspective. Examining faculty’s perspectives on interaction with
students as well as the career outcome for faculty are just as essential. It is important for faculty
to understand the impact of their interaction on students. Faculty development offices can offer
training to inform and educate faculty on the essentials of student-faculty interactions. Student
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 114
service professionals may need to be an advocate for international students on campus and help
faculty understand their unique needs.
Conclusion
The current study found student-faculty interactions to be an important factor associated
with international student outcomes. International students who frequently interacted with
faculty in a variety of circumstances were more likely to be successful and satisfied. Student
faculty interactions also impacted academic outcome both on objective measures, such as GPA,
and on self-reported measures such as self-perception of academic ability and intellectual self-
confidence.
Future studies employing a variety of national datasets are needed to further examine the
student-faculty interactions of international students. A variety of themes relevant to
international students may not be measured in national datasets. Thus, qualitative studies are
essential to facilitating our understanding of international students. The international student
population is integral to U.S. college campuses. Domestic students’ college experiences are
mutually enriched by a diverse population. We should therefore be committed to understanding
them and to serving them effectively.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 115
References
Adelegan, F. O., & Parks, D. J. (1985). Problems of transition for African students in an
American university. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(6), 504–508.
Al-Sharideh, K., & Goe, W. R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university: An
examination of factors influencing the personal adjustment of international students.
Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 699–725.
Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of
student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development,
42(1), 3–14.
Anderson, L. E., & Carta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make faculty and student relationships
effective. College Teaching, 50(4), 134–138.
Anderson, T. R., & Myer, T. E. (1985). Presenting problems, counselor contacts, and 'no shows':
International and American college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(6),
500–503.
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural integrity?
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 57–81.
Arredondo, M. (1995, Nov). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Orlando, Florida. Report retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED391423.pdf (ED391423)
ASHE, Wilson, M., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (Eds.). (2005). ASHE Reader on college student
development theory. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
ASHE, & Turner, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education. Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 116
Astin, A. W. (1968). The college environment. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984, Reprint 1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change 17(4): 35–39.
Astin, A. W. (1991, 2002). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. American Council on Education.
Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (2003). Study on how college affects students: A personal history of the CIRP.
About Campus, 8(3), 21–28.
Bendersky, N., Casoy, R., Felman, Y., & Oppenheimer, B. (1984). Coping with transitions.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(6), 555–556.
Berry. E. B. (1985, March). Student-faculty interaction: Design or default. Paper presented at the
National Conference on Higher Education of the American Association for Higher
Education, Chicago, IL. (ED261569) Abstract retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46, 5–68.
Berry, J. W. (1999). Intercultural relations in plural societies. Canadian Psychology, 10, 1–9.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 615–631.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T. & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress.
International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 117
Beykont, Z. F., & Daiute, C. (2002). Inclusiveness in Higher Education Courses: International
Student Perspectives. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 35-42.
Boyer, S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1988). Noncognitive predictors of academic success for
international students: A longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development,
29(3), 218.
Brown, L. (2008). The incidence of study-related stress in international students in the initial
stage of the international sojourn. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(1),
5–28.
Chang, J. C. (2005). Faculty student interaction at the community college: A focus on students of
color. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769–802.
Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for
international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167–184.
Chen, G. (1988, April-May). Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication
competence. Paper presented at the 79
th
Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication
Association, Baltimore, MD. (ED297381). Retrieved from http://
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED297381.pdf
Chickering, A. W. (1967). Campus climate and development studies, their implications for four-
year church related colleges. (ED025782) Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED025782.pdf
Chow, P., & Marcus, R. (2007). International student mobility and the United States: The 2007
Open Doors Survey. International Higher Education, 50, 3–14.
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact
and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 118
Cole, D. (2010). The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority students' college
grades: Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. Journal of the
Professoriate, 3(2), 137–160. Retrieved from http://jotp.icbche.org/2010/3-
2_Cole_p137.pdf
Cole, D. & Griffin, K. A. (2013). Advancing the study of student-faculty interaction: A focus on
diverse students’ and faculty. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory
and Research, 28, (pp. 561-611). doi: 10,1007/978-94-007-5836-0_12
Constantinople, A., Cornelius, R., & Gray, J. (1988). The chilly climate: Fact or artifact? The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(5), 527–550.
Cotton S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants.
Higher Education, 51(4), 487–519.
Cox, B. E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A
typology from a residential college. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343–362.
Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D. & Quaye, B. R. L., (2010).
Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: Factors shaping faculty-student
interaction outside the classroom. Research in Higher Education, 51, 767-788. doi:
10.1007/s11162-010-9178-z
Dao, T. K., Lee, D. & Chang, H. L. (2007). Acculturation level, perceived English fluency,
perceived social support level, and depression among Taiwanese international students.
College Student Journal, 41(2), 287–295.
Dillard, J. M., & Chisolm, G. B. (1983). Counseling the international student in a multicultural
context. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(2), 101–105.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 119
Einarson, M. K. & Clarkberg, M. E. (2010). Race differences in the impact of student’s out-of-
class interactions with faculty. The Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 101-136.
Fatima, N. (2001, April). International female graduate students' perceptions of their adjustment
experiences and coping strategies at an urban research university. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
(ED452336). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED452336.pdf
Feinberg, L. (1972). Faculty-student interaction: How students differ. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 13(1), 24–27.
Feng, J. (1991). The adaptation of students from the People's Republic of China to an American
academic culture. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED329833.pdf
Frey, L. L., & Roysircar, G. (2006). South Asian and East Asian international students' perceived
prejudice, acculturation, and frequency of help resource utilization. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24(4), 208–222.
Green, D. O. N., & Kim, E. (2005). Experiences of Korean female doctoral students in academe:
Raising voice against gender and racial stereotypes. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(5), 487–500.
Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D., & Fillpot, J., (2000). Peer and
student-faculty relations in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 24(7), 587–598.
Heikinheimo, P. S., & Shute, J. C. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student views and
institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(5), 399–406.
Higher Education Research Institute (n.d.) CIRP survey and services. Retrieved from
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/herisurveys.php
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 120
Huntley, H. S. (1993). Adult international students: Problems of adjustment. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED355886.pdf
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999, February). Out-of-class communication between students
and faculty: The relationship to instructor immediacy, trust, and control, and to student
motivation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication
Association, Vancouver, British Columbia. Abstract retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov (ED427380).
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (2001, May). Talk to me: An examination of the content of out-of-
class interaction between students and faculty. Paper presented at the 51
st
Annual
Meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC. Retrieved
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED453561.pdf (ED453561)
Kim, Y. K. (2010). Racially different patterns of student-faculty interaction in college: A focus
on levels, effects, and causal directions. The Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 161-189.
Kim, Y. K. & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student-faculty interaction in research universities: Differences
by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher
Education, 50(5), 437-459.
Klomegah, R. Y. (2006). Social factors relating to alienation experienced by international
students in the United States. College Student Journal, 40(2), 303–315.
Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student engagement in
good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42(3), 351–371.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework
and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved from
http://nsse.indiana.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_Conceptual_Framework.pdf
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 121
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of
Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Institute of International Education (2007). Open door 2007 data tables. Retrieved from
http:// opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113118.
Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student-faculty interaction and the effect on college student
outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28(112), 971-990.
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of
discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409.
Lechuga, V. M. (2011). Faculty-graduate student mentoring relationships: mentors’ perceived
roles and responsibilities. Higher Education, 62, 757-771. DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-
9416-0
Leong, F. T., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986). A comparison of international and U.S. students'
preferences for help sources. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(5), 426–430.
Li, L. & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-
faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175-185.
Malesky, L. A. & Peters, C. (2012). Defining appropriate professional behavior for faculty and
university students on social networking websites. Higher Education, 63, 135-151. DOI
10.1007/s10734-011-9451-x.
National Science Foundation (2006). U.S. doctorates in the 20
th
century. Retrieved from
www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 122
National Survey of Student Engagement (n.d.). Home. Retrieved from
http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm
National Survey of Student Engagement (2001). Improving the college experience: National
benchmarks of effective educational practice. NSSE 2001 Report. National Survey of
Student Engagement: The College Student Report.) Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED464568.pdf (ED464568
Nicholas, M. W. (2001). Adaptation of Asian students to American culture. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED453751.pdf (Ed453751)
Nordquist, E. D. (1993, February). Missing opportunities: Drop-outs and a failure to find a
mentor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication
Association, Albuquerque, NM. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED365253.pdf (ED365253)
Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education,
2, 10–16.
Parr, G., Bradley, L., & Bingi, R. (1992). Concerns and feelings of international students.
Journal of College Student Development, 33(1), 20–25.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50(4), 545–595.
Pascarella, E. T. et al. (1983). Student-Faculty relationships and freshman year intellectual and
personal growth in a nonresidential setting. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(5),
395–402.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 123
Pascarella, E. T., & Terezena, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist,19, 10–
57.
Perkins, C. S., Perkins, M. L., Gulielmino, L. M., & Reiff, R. F. (1977). A comparison of the
adjustment problems of three international student groups. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 18(5), 382–388.
Plecha, M. (2002, April). The impact of motivation, student-peer, and student-faculty interaction
on academic self-confidence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED464149.pdf (ED464149)
Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Nora, A., McPherson, R., & Pisecco, S. (2002). Relation between
assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and psychosocial adjustment among international
graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 632-642.
Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international students
within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(1), 28–
45.
Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and
demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of
College Counseling, 7(1), 73–82.
Rajapaksa S., & Dundes, L. (2002–2003). It's a long way home: International student adjustment
to living in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(1), 15–28.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 124
Robinson, L. R., & Sandhu, D. S. (2007). Isolation, adjustment, and acculturation issues of
international students: Intervention strategies for counselors. In H. D. Singaravelu and M.
Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international students in the United States
(pp.13-36). Alexandra, VA: American Counseling Association.
Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for
international students: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 75(1), 435–448.
Santos, S. J., & Reigadas, E. T. (2000, February). Evaluation of a university faculty mentoring
program: Its effect on Latino college adjustment. In: National Association of African
American Studies & National Association of Hispanic and Latino Studies: 2000
Literature Monograph Series Proceedings. Houston, TX. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED454008.pdf
Sax, L., Astin, A., Korn, W., & Mahoney, K. (2000). The American freshman: National
norms for 2000. Los Angeles: American Council on Education & University of
California at Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student-
faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(6), 642–659.
Schram, J. L., & Lauver, P. J. (1988). Alienation in international students. Journal of College
Student Development, 29(2), 146–150.
Sheehan, O. T. O., & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American students'
psychosocial development. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 522.
Shaw, R., & Creamer, D. G. (1984). A theoretical model of student-faculty interaction. Abstract
retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov. (ED240955)
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 125
Schneider, E. F., Jones, M. C., & Farris, K. B., Havrda, D. Jackson II, K. C. & Hamrick, T.S.
(2011). Faculty perceptions of appropriate faculty behaviors in social interactions with
student pharmacists. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75 (4) Article 70.
Snow, S. G. (1973). Correlates of faculty-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 46, 4, 489-
498.
Stith, P. L., & Russell, F. (1994, April–May). Faculty/student interaction: Impact on student
retention. Paper presented at the 34
th
Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional
Research, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED373650.pdf (ED373650)
Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Orellana-Damacela, L., Portillo, N., Rowan, J., & Andrews-Guillen, C.
Experiences of differential treatment among college students of color. The Journal of
Higher Education, 74(4), 428–444.
Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students: A cause for concern.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(3), 240–245.
Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education's self-reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory of
student development. Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 263–296.
Tang, E. (1981, June). Student recruitment and retention. Paper presented at the 1981 Pacific
Region Seminar of the Association of Community College Trustees, "Blazing New Trails
in the 80's", Portland, OR. Abstract retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov (ED207620)
Tinto, (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Tinto, (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 126
Tompson H. B., & Tompson, G. H. (1996). Confronting diversity issues in the classroom with
strategies to improve satisfaction and retention issues. Journal of Education for Business,
72, 53–57.
Trice, A. G. (2001, November). Faculty perception of graduate international students: The
benefits and challenges. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457816.pdf (ED457816)
Trombetti, I. A. (1986). Helping students with limited English proficiency realize the American
dream. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(4), 367–368.
The College Student Experiences Questionnaire Research Program (2005). Home. Retrieved
from http://www.indiana.edu/~cseq/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-022), Table 216. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_216.asp
Wilson, R. C., Woods, L., Gaff, J. G. (1974). Social-psychological accessibility and faculty-
student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology of Education, 47(1), 74-92.
Wood, L., & Wilson, R. C. (1972). Teachers with impact. Research Reporter. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED067006.pdf (ED067006)
Wortham, F. B. (1986). A group for teaching job interview skills to international students.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(2), 179–181.
Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international
students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(1), 33-44. doi:
10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00359.x
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 127
Young, (1998, November). Intercultural adaptation in the classroom: The ethics of grading and
assessing students with minimal proficiency in speaking English. Paper presented at the
84
th
Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED424605.pdf (ED424605)
Yuker, H. E. et al. (1966). An analysis of former new college students' reactions to college
experiences (Classes of 1960–1964). Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED037167.pdf (ED037167)
Zhang, N., & Dixon, D. N. (2003). Acculturation and attitudes of Asian international students
toward seeking psychological help. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 31, 205–222.
Zhao, C., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international and American
student engagement in effective education practices. The Journal of Higher Education,
76(2), 209–231.
Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todaman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture
shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 33(1), 63–75.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 128
Appendix
Variables
Demographic Variables
Gender (Male/Female)
Race/ethnicity
Age
Marital Status
Native English Speaker (NATENSP)
Citizen (CITIZEN)
Degree earned (CSS-DEGERN)
Religion (SRELIGN, CSSRLGD)
SATV
SATM
ACT
Parental Highest Education

Variables related to interaction with faculty
From Freshman Survey
Was a Guest in a Teacher’s Home
Asked a teacher for Advice after Class
Talking with Teachers Outside of Class
Chances Communicate Regularly with Professors

From College Senior Survey
ADACT 05 Have Been a Guest in a Professor's Home
ADACT 17 Met with Faculty During Office Hours
ADACT 18 Met with Faculty Outside Class/Office Hrs
FACPRV 01-12
Encouragement for Graduate School
Opportunity to Work in Research Project
Advice about Educational Program
Respect
Opportunity to Publish
Emotional Support & Encouragement
Letter of Recommendation
Assistance with Study Skills
Negative Feedback about Academic Work
Intellectual Challenge & Stimulation
Opportunity to Discuss Coursework Outside Class
Help in Achieving Professional Goals

Adjustment Variables – Student Success
1. SUCCESS 01-07
Utilizing Campus Services Available
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 129
Understanding Professors’ Expectations
Developing Effective Study Skills
Adjusting to Academic Demands
Managing Time Effectively
Getting to Know Faculty
Developing Close Friendships with Students
2. Acculturative Stress Variables
Feeling Depressed
Feeling Overwhelmed
Feeling Lonely or Homesick

Academic Outcome variables – Self-ratings of ability and skills (CSS ) compared to CIRP
Freshman Survey
CSSRAT 01 & 15 SLFRAT01 & 15
Academic Ability
Self-confidence (intellectual)

Academic Outcome Variables – Vocational/Graduate School Preparation
GPA
GRE-V
GRE-Q
LSAT
MCAT
GMAT

Overall Satisfaction Variables
Satisfaction 07: Overall Quality of Instruction
Satisfaction 19: Amount of Contact with Faculty
Satisfaction 25: Ability to find faculty / staff mentors
Satisfaction 28: Overall Satisfaction

Institutional Variables (4-year colleges only)
Public vs. Private

Abstract (if available)

Abstract International students constituted 3.4 to 3.6% of the total student population in U.S. degree-granting institutions (NCES, 2008). Research efforts on this population have been divergent and disparate, thus findings cannot be systematized for theoretical consistency (Pedersen, 1991). Student interaction with faculty has been identified as one of the strongest factors relating to student persistence (Tinto, 1997), student satisfaction and other positive educational outcomes (Astin, 1999). Guided by Astin's (1991) Input-Environment-Outcome Model, this quantitative study utilized data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) to explore how international students' interaction with faculty impacted their academic outcomes. Results indicated that international students interacted with faculty frequently. These interactions had significant impact on international students' academic outcome (College GPA, self-perceived academic ability and intellectual self-confidence), success and satisfaction. Regression analyses identified that getting encouragement for graduate school and receiving a letter of recommendation from faculty were consistently a factor associated with positive academic outcomes and student satisfaction. In addition, advice about education program, opportunity to discuss coursework outside class and opportunities to apply learning in the real world were factors associated with student success. Faculty and student service professionals should become aware of international students' unique needs and challenges and facilitate positive student-faculty interaction for this population.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

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

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

The influence of a Latina-based sorority on the academic experiences of Latina college students

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

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

PDF

A case study on readmitted students: the impact of social and academic involvement on degree completion

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

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

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution

PDF

Do attitudes matter? attitudes towards debt and graduate student loan debt

PDF

Academic success of students who come from highly stressful homes

Asset Metadata

Creator Mok, Doris Shui Ying (author)

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

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/22/2013

Defense Date 04/10/2013

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

Tag academic outcome,diversity,international students,OAI-PMH Harvest,student success,student-faculty interaction,undergraduate education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Cole, Darnell G. (committee chair), Melguizo, Tatiana (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email dmok@umac.mo,drdorismok@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-349259

Unique identifier UC11296551

Identifier etd-MokDorisSh-2176.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-349259 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MokDorisSh-2176.pdf

Dmrecord 349259

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mok, Doris Shui Ying

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