Edhe5106finalpaper 2 1

Running head: INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS & ACADEMIC INTEGRATION 1
International Students & Academic Integration
Matthew Cheatham, Heather Corley, Sara Greicius, Megan Lorincz, & Anya Work
Virginia Tech
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS & ACADEMIC INTEGRATION 2
Abstract
International students will be examined in a quantitative study regarding their academic
integration and how this impacts their graduation rates at postsecondary institutions in the United
States. A synthesis of the literature will demonstrate the social and cultural patterns of the
population as they relate to academic integration. This assessment examined 115 institutions,
found through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) using the selected
classifications of Research I Universities, public, four-year or above, and private not-for-profit,
four-year or above, Carnegie Classification 2015 Basic: Doctoral Research Universities - Highest
Research Activity. The variables include remedial services, faculty to student ratio, and major
choice (Engineering, Business, and Biological Sciences). The method of analysis will be
multiple regression.
Keywords: International students, academic integration, graduation rates, persistence

International Students & Academic Integration
As global education becomes an imperative component to higher education in the United
States, a deeper understanding of international student health and well-being becomes
particularly important. Because international students make up a significant student group within
the undergraduate student population, it is especially critical that higher education professionals
gain greater knowledge on this group (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2016). An
internationally diverse campus offers a multitude of opportunities for all students, especially in
terms of greater cultural acceptance, the opportunity to develop skills in working with people
from diverse backgrounds, and a more thorough understanding of global issues. International
students also provide economic revenue to the U.S. through tuition, fees, and living expenses.
With such benefits, it is no wonder that higher education professionals focus heavily on the
recruitment of international students. However, a gap in the literature on international student
involvement, especially in terms of academic participation, suggests that challenges exist for
these students despite the high demand for them. Moreover, while extensive recruitment
programs exist for international students, information on international student graduation rates is
not as readily available. Subsequently, our research question asks how does academic integration
impact international students’ graduation rates as compared to domestic students?
Academic integration refers to involvement in academic activities such as faculty-student
interaction and student-student interaction, both inside and outside of the classroom. As a
culturally and ethnically diverse student population coming from countries all over the world,
international students as a group face a higher likelihood of experiencing academic challenges
due to change in culture and extreme academic pressure. Consequently, it is crucial that higher
education professionals learn more about the practices of those international students who do
have significant levels of academic integration, and the impact this has on their graduation rates.
Literature Review
The number of international students enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions
continues to increase, however, the support these students receive on campus remains stagnant,
and their academic integration and persistence suffers as a result. In the 2011 to 2012 academic
year, there were 764,495 international undergraduate and graduate students studying at U.S.
institutions, and 974,926 as of 2015 (Institute of International Education, 2016). Institutions tend
to focus more on the recruitment of international students as this population tends to pay full
tuition, as well as help internationalize and diversify campuses (Hart & Coates, 2011;
Mamiseishvili, 2012a; Melius, 2014; Rosales, 2014; Schulte & Choudaha, 2014). As
international students are most likely not eligible for scholarships, students must rely on jobs,
their families, or their home country to cover tuition (Rosales, 2014). The disconnect between
expectation and reality, as well as cultural expectations, causes stress and difficulty acculturating
to the new college environment for many international students (Hart & Coates, 2011;
Mamiseishvili, 2012a; Melius, 2014).
Persistence rates of international students in general is largely unreported and under
researched (Mamiseishvili, 2012a). International students may only spend a short time at their
host institutions, and although the number of international students at U.S. higher education
institutions is increasing, these students still make up a small percentage of an institution’s
population (Mamiseishvili, 2012a). However, recent research shows the importance of adequate
collegiate support systems as well as successful integration during the student’s first year
positively influences international students’ persistence (Melius, 2014; Rosales, 2014). In a study
conducted within small focus groups, Poyrazli and Grahame (2007) found that international
students face many adjustment barriers, including transportation access, developing friendships,
and discrimination. Students also discussed the lack of interaction between international and
American students. In order to resolve this issue, researchers suggest pairing international
students and American students upon arrival to facilitate relationships (Poyrazli & Grahame,
2007).
In Tinto’s College Student Departure Theory, Tinto argued that a student’s assimilation
into an institution’s academic and social systems will have a positive effect on a student’s
commitment to that institution, and therefore increase the likelihood of that student persisting to
graduation (Andrade, 2006; Mamiseishvili, 2012b). Beyond engagement with others either
socially or academically, students are more successful and more likely to stay at a university
until degree completion when they are satisfied with the quality of their college experience.
Researchers defined “satisfaction” as international students’ positive feelings toward
“instruction, curriculum, faculty, other students, the administration, and facilities” (Fass-Holmes,
2016, p. 948). Mamiseishvili’s (2012b) study on international community college students
echoed this sentiment, where it was found that the level of international students’ interaction with
academic advisors and faculty were positively correlated with persistence rates. International
students’ and domestic students’ persistence patterns are also thought to be similar
(Mamiseishvili, 2012a). These findings are cited as reasons as to why institutions and researchers
neglect to collect persistence rates of international students (Mamiseishvili, 2012a).
International students have unique struggles on host campuses, including language
barriers, acculturation difficulties, and lack of support services (Hwang, Bennett, & Beauchemin,
2014; Mamiseishvili, 2012; Melius, 2014; Rosales, 2014). Additionally, some international
students actively choose not to utilize existing support services. For example, a study from 2014
analyzed the utilization rates of counseling services of 834 international students at a Midwestern
university between 2005 and 2010, and found international students underutilized services
(Hwang et al., 2014). Results showed the top reasons international students utilized counseling
services were relationship issues with friends, faculty and staff, anxiety, and acculturation issues.
Forty-eight percent of international students in the study had relationship issues at intake,
perhaps due to cultural differences between faculty, staff, and fellow students (Hwang et al.,
2014).
International students also tended to avoid seeking help for themselves and were instead
referred by faculty and staff for additional support services (Hwang et al., 2014). In 2014,
Hamamura & Laird “examined relationships among acculturative stress, grade point average
satisfaction, maladaptive perfectionism, and depression in 52 East Asian international students
and 126 North American students ” and found that the lack of English language proficiency may
lead to lower levels of self-confidence in East Asian international students (p. 205). In addition,
Poyrazli and Grahame (2007) found that international students also experienced difficulty
interacting with their professors, because some participants felt professors needed more
understanding of English as a second language (ESL) students, while others appreciated when
professors slowed down their lessons to accommodate international students’ needs. In order to
facilitate more positive interactions, researchers suggest faculty receive specialized training on
how to support international students (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). It is imperative that
counselors, international support staff, and faculty pay attention to the struggles international
students face and maintain solid remedial services that are accessible for international students in
order to help the students better adjust to their new schools, which would, in turn, help them
persist to graduation (Hamamura & Laird, 2014; Fass-Holmes, 2016; Andrade, 2006).
Although many international students form friendships with students from their home
country, they may not pursue relationships with American students (Greary, 2016). A lack of
American friends may lead to a lack of cultural adaptation, and satisfaction with their college
experience (Greary, 2016). International students’ integration difficulties often continue in the
classroom. For example, students from Asian countries are used to listening instead of answering
questions, and may not make eye contact with professors. These customs may make it difficult
for them to communicate with their professors (Greary, 2016). Conversely, recent research
shows East Asian international students are willing to complain directly to faculty and staff
concerning issues (Hart & Coates, 2011). Results from Hart & Coates’ (2011) study show East
Asian international students are most likely to express dissatisfaction through emailing faculty or
staff directly, or speaking to fellow students. However, East Asian international students in the
study were less likely to speak to family and friends from their home country because they did
not want to reveal any challenges or struggles (Hart & Coates, 2011). These results show the
importance of developing and improving programs to support the transition.
According to Greary (2016), an international student’s ability to successfully integrate
into the culture of their host institution determines their overall success and satisfaction at that
institution, and a strong social support system, including “friends, classmates, church groups, and
counseling,” help international students cope with cross-cultural challenges (p. 529). However,
international students may feel isolated from American students, and have difficulty forming
relationships with them (Greary, 2016; Eldaba, 2016). To combat this isolation, many institutions
have developed programs to assist international students with their integration into American
higher education institutions. For example, Arizona Western College connects the international
student program with the college’s Honors Program as a way to facilitate relationships between
international and American students (Greary, 2016). James Madison and George Mason
Universities have also implemented a year-long program for international students which
“incorporate several classes in ESL coursework...The classes are restructured to provide a
considerable amount of language support during students’ first year” (Greary, 2012, p. 532).
Andrade (2006) makes the suggestion that schools should intentionally create
international seminar classes during orientation or freshman year so that they can “adapt to the
expectations of American university professors and campus life as well as to form strong study
skills” in concert with creating programs that help facilitate international students making friends
with students from other cultures (p. 73). In addition to these programs, Eldaba (2016) suggests
that each program should integrate assessment as part of the program design in order to check
students’ satisfaction, evaluate the program’s success, and adjust the program if necessary. The
issues international students experience at U.S. higher education institutions are unique, varied,
and complex, and warrants more in-depth research to understand how to successfully create
programs and opportunities that help them achieve their ultimate goal of persisting to graduation.
Method
A variety of both qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches exist to assess
the use of support services among international students at universities. In terms of qualitative
research methods, we could use focus groups, individual interviews, or possibly observe
students’ participation in academic support services. These methods of research will allow for a
deeper understanding of the reasons, opinions, and motivations behind using or not using
academic support services. Qualitative research is also useful in discovering the trends in
opinions and thinking surrounding academic support services. Such methods may use structured
or semi-structured techniques to carry out the assessment or evaluation of the independent
variable. With these qualitative methods, the sample size is typically small and participants are
selected to fulfill a specified amount of needed respondents that the research group decides as the
appropriate number. With a mixed-method approach, we could use qualitative methods such as
focus groups, as well as quantitative methods, such as implementing a survey. In doing so, we
could have both a greater knowledge of opinions and thoughts regarding academic integration,
while also finding more generalizable results to understand regarding the larger population.
Alternatively, the assessment for this particular research topic could utilize quantitative
research methods. In doing so, we would quantify findings about attitudes, behaviors, opinions,
and other typically qualitative characteristics to create useable statistics regarding international
students’ utilization of academic services and opportunities. Consequently, the results will be
more generalizable to the greater population because quantitative research methods often allow
for researchers to look at larger sample populations. While qualitative methods can be either
structured or semi-structured, quantitative methods are structured so as to avoid further bias and
threats to internal validity. Methods of quantitative research include surveys (online, in-person,
telephone, longitudinal, etc.), and other methods of data collection.
Though qualitative methods present considerable benefits to researching international
students, such as a deep understanding of attitudes and beliefs, our method will follow a
quantitative approach due to time constraints and available resources. A quantitative approach
will also provide valuable insight into this population, as we will be able to look at larger sample
sizes across more universities, and generalize our results.
Setting
The literature suggests the majority of international students come to the U.S. to study at
universities on the East and West Coast (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2016). In
particular, the most significant number of this population studies at Columbia University, New
York University, Northeastern University, University of Illinois, and University of Southern
California (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2016). For the purposes of our study, we
will focus on international students attending 115 different universities in the U.S., as we have
access to data from these institutions through IPEDS, providing overall greater information on
the population.
Initially, 115 U.S. institutions fell under our selected classifications on IPEDs, including
Research I Universities, public, four-year or above, and private not-for-profit, four-year or
above, Carnegie Classification 2015 Basic: Doctoral Research Universities - Highest Research
Activity. After interpreting our data, only 91 of these institutions provided the appropriate
information for our research question, which we will discuss in more detail under Methods of
Contact and Data Collection. While the research suggests that a majority of international
students in the U.S. come to private institutions, we decided to examine both private and public
institutions. We selected these classifications within IPEDS in order to gather the most relevant
and greatest amount of information regarding our population of international students.
Population and Sample
The international student population at universities in the U.S. is a culturally and
ethnically diverse student group. Top countries of origin for international students studying in the
U.S. come predominantly from Asia: China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and
Japan (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2016). U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement (2016) reported that high research institutions had the largest enrollment of
international students. We were also interested in comparing domestic and international students
to determine if there was a difference in their academic success. Our sample was also chosen
based on the most popular majors among international students: Business, Engineering and
Computer Science (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2016). However, in IPEDS,
Computer Science was not an option, so we chose the next major available: Biological Sciences.
International student characteristics include extreme ideals of perfectionism and academic
success (Hamamura & Laird, 2014). The idea of perfectionism revolves around unrealistic,
perfectionistic attitudes regarding academic performance, grades, and job placement (Hamamura
& Laird, 2014). While these students differ ethnically and culturally, the groups collectively
adhere to cultural norms that facilitate feelings of stress from high academic expectations
(Hamamura & Laird, 2014).
Method of Contact and Data Collection
As mentioned previously, there were 115 institutions with information available on
IPEDS that matched the characteristics we are studying. However, when looking at the data
provided on IPEDS, there were several institutions that were missing information for one or
more values. These institutions were removed in order to increase the study’s validity, so that we
had 91 total institutions. For this particular analysis, we looked at six years of data, starting in
2008 through 2013 in order to gather enough information to get results that adequately represent
the population. Also, as mentioned previously, we are analyzing the various independent
variables of remedial services offered, private versus public sector, student to faculty ratio, and
major (Engineering, Business, and Biological Sciences). Between 2008 and 2013, the data is
only provided for every other year for the majors, so we used the year’s previous data to
compensate for those missing data points. For example, schools were missing information on
students’ majors in 2009, 2011, and 2013. We understand that this could affect the reliability of
the results, but in order to include majors for the study, this was required.
Method of Analysis
Before choosing a method to analyze the data that we collected, a few components were
taken into account. The first component was thinking about the type of data collected and
whether it is qualitative or quantitative, which in this case was quantitative. Additionally, the
number of variables needed to be considered and whether there were multiple dependent
variables or just one dependent variable with multiple independent variables. There was only one
dependent variable in this case, which is the graduation rates of international students. There are
several independent variables, such as remedial services, public versus private, student to faculty
ratio, and major (Engineering, Business, and Biological Sciences). With these details in mind, we
decided to use multiple regression as it would be the best method to analyze the data collected.
The data for the study was continuous, including the results for the dependent variable which
eliminated the possibility of using logistic regression.
Instrumentation
A qualitative study would have been difficult to execute in the short amount of time,
given that this is not a longitudinal study. Additionally, accessing information on international
students proved to be challenging when working with gatekeepers in other institutions. Due to
this difficulty we used quantitative data through a publically available source, IPEDS. Since we
did not contact any students or administer a survey, we did not need to submit an Institution
Review Board (IRB) form. IPEDS collects data from surveys administered to every college,
university, and technical and vocational institution that participates in federal financial aid
programs for students as mandated by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (“About
Us”). IPEDS also provided us a way to analyze data over six years; therefore we are using panel
data. It was important that we chose an instrument that could be easily repeated and to use an
existing instrument to support validity. Based on the literature, the following variables were
included in our report regarding domestic and international students: remedial services, faculty to
student ratio, and major. After creating our categories we ended up with 91 results for
institutions with information on our variables.
Findings and Discussion
Using a multiple regression analysis, we were able to analyze the data for all 91
institutions (see Appendix). In order to understand the results of the multiple regression analysis
and to determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, we broke
down the statistics to identify the coefficients and p-values. Once we determined if there was a
positive or negative relationship using the the coefficient sign as a guide, the statistical
significance of the variables needed to be examined. For this specific analysis, we determined
that the variables would be considered “statistically significant” if the p-value for the variable is
less than 0.05.
When looking at the newly analyzed data, it is clear that several of the independent
variables did have a statistically significant relationship with the dependent variable. The sector
of an institution (in other words, whether an institution is public or private) had a negative
statistically significant relationship with the dependent variable. More specifically, there is a
higher correlation between international student graduation rates at public institutions than
international student graduation rates at private institutions. This was determined due to the
negative relationship, but the difference is relatively small at around 1.09% difference.
Another independent variable that was statistically significant was the student to faculty
ratio, which also had a negative relationship with graduation rates. That means that the smaller
the student to faculty ratio, the more likely international students are to graduate. The percentage
that it affects graduation rates is 0.007%, which is rather small, and over time as the ratio
increased so does the unit, but it still has an impact on the number of international students
graduating.
The independent variable of international students studying within the engineering field
was statistically significant and had a positive relationship with international student graduation
rates. With a positive relationship, that means that if the international students were studying
engineering, then they were more likely to graduate. Similarly to the previous two variables, the
percentage is rather small at 0.0014% more likely for each unit increase of international students
studying engineering.
However, even though the aforementioned variables were found statistically significant,
several other variables tested were not statistically significant in their relationship with
graduation rates. Those variables include domestic students studying Engineering, domestic
students studying Business, domestic students studying Biological Sciences, international
students studying Business, and international students studying Biological Sciences. Even if the
results of these variables were not necessarily unexpected, we assumed all of the variables to be
statistically significant in their relationships with graduation rates.
The reasons behind why the findings are important provide a more in-depth look at how
the results can impact higher education in general as well as how higher education institutions
can improve their support of international students. The sector of higher education provided an
intriguing relationship to graduation rates compared to the literature. Even though statistics led
us to believe international students attended private institutions at a higher level, with three out
of the top five most popular institutions being private, international students are graduating
public institutions at a higher level.
Student to faculty ratio was one of the few independent variables that was statistically
significant its relationship to graduation rates.. It is important to see that the smaller the ratio of
students to faculty correlated with higher graduation rates. This is an important statistic for
institutions to look at and study more in depth to understand because if an institution is able to
reduce that ratio, then they could benefit the academic integration of their students.
Understandably this could be difficult for certain institutions and majors as certain majors such
as engineering might have larger class sizes compared to some majors such as liberal arts or
humanities. A more in-depth study specifically related to student to faculty ratio at individual
institutions comparing various majors would be important to see various majors’ student to
faculty ratios relationship with international student graduation rates. These findings allow for
more in depth studies to occur since the data points towards the statistically significant
relationship between student to faculty ratios and graduation rates.
As mentioned above, the only major that was statistically significant in relation to graduation
rates was international students studying engineering. Business, and not Engineering or
Biological Sciences, is the most popular major within international students (U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enforcement, 2016). However, neither the relationships between international student
Business nor Biological Sciences majors and international student graduation rates were
statistically significant. We expected the most popular major for international students to have a
positive statistically significant relationship with graduation rates, however this was not the case.
If any of the three majors were not going to be statistically significant, Biological Sciences
would have been expected, because it was not a top five most popular major among international
students. Another study that could be conducted related to international students and academic
integration would be to focus on a singular major and gather information about the
concentrations to see if there was a specific breakdown of impact varying by concentration (ex.
Mechanical versus Civil Engineering).
Another finding that was different from what the literature had suggested was how
remedial services was not statistically significant in relation to graduation rates. In the literature,
remedial services for international students were shown to have a positive effect on international
students' acculturation and academic integration. Without remedial services at an institution the
support available for international students’ transition and adaptation to a new environment
decreases. In a review of the statistics from the multiple regression analysis, it is important to
recognize that the R2 value is equal to 0.995. This is significant as it means that the independent
variables we included explain 99.5% of the variation in the dependent variable, or graduation
rates. Additionally, we can determine the model is statistically significant as the F statistic was
less than 0.05 (p-value) and listed at 0.00. Both of those statistics are important in knowing that
our study included variables that aligned with the literature as well as the independent variables’
relationship with graduation rates.
While the statistics and impact are important, it is also critical to think about how these
results can be influential in higher education. A couple components have already been
referenced, including the student to faculty ratio and how if institutions are able to decrease the
ratio then it would benefit not only international students, but all students. . An additional
thought related to student to faculty ratios is that as class sizes decrease, international students
might feel more comfortable approaching their professors or the professors might be able to
adjust their class slightly to assist students. Either of these options would provide more
opportunities for international students to receive academic support. Also, the availability of
remedial services has been mentioned in a broader sense and how even though the results were
not statistically significant, the use of these services can benefit international students. A future
policy that could be implemented would require institutions to provide remedial services if the
institutions reach a certain number of international students. This policy is just one example of
how institutions can support more international students in the future and how there can be
certain requirements across the county and all higher education institutions.
The impact of implications of major choice also warrants discussion. One important
concept for institutions to understand is what majors; international students gravitate towards in
order to find out where the most support needs to be provided. Since the literature stated that the
most popular majors are Business and Engineering, institutions could focus extra resources to
support international students in those fields. Engineering had a positive relationship with
graduation rates, which means that the engineering field across the country supports international
students and assists with their academic integration, and has a positive relationship with
graduation rates.
Limitations
One limitation to our study is the data itself. While we were able to collect information
from an adequate number of universities over an appropriate period of time, not all of the
universities reported the same type of information nor did the universities report the same
information from year to year. This meant that we had to proxy some of the numbers by using
the prior year’s data as a placeholder, which could potentially skew our findings or cause
incorrect interpretations in examining meaningful relationships. In an ideal situation, all of the
same information would be on the IPEDS site for the same amount of time.
Next, one potential limitation to the study is researcher bias. Our group had to change our
research question multiple times over the course of the semester before ultimately landing on our
current and final research question. From the beginning, our group agreed that we wanted to stay
with a similar population because we had already done a substantial amount of research that
could be relevant to a multitude of topics. This means that while we were able to complete our
study and come to conclusions, we had a vested interest in finding a similar topic to our original
research question that we made sure that we could actually study. This may impact our findings
because we were determined to have findings, meaning that we made the information work like
what we did with proxy information for schools that did not have the data we needed from every
year.
Given the nature of the study, time was a huge limiting factor to our group. We needed to
find our data in a short amount of time, which forced us to quickly develop our research question
and our research methods. If we had had more time, then we may have been able to find better
data to proxy for the conceptual outcomes that we wanted to study or collect the data ourselves
by reaching out to the universities involved.
Finally, another limitation our group faced was IPEDS. As a team, we struggled to fully
understand how to use the site itself, which means we may not have been the most efficient or
effective in how we went about collecting the data. There were several similar categories, and,
hopefully, we choose the data that was most pertinent to use in our study, but there is always the
possibility that another combination of categories could have lead us to a different result.
Conclusion
In the year 2015, international students made up almost one million of the students who
attended higher education institutions in the U.S. (Institute of International Education, 2016).
Institutions need to increase their attention on the academic integration of this important
demographic of students. This number has continued to grow over the last decade, specifically
within the last five years there was an increase of 27.5% international student enrollment
(Institute of International Education, 2016). International students experience different barriers
compared to domestic students such as: English comprehension, acculturation, lack of support
services, and overall academic integration. Further research could provide an opportunity to
create additional areas of support for international students.
From the multiple regression analysis, there were several variables that were statistically
significant and showed a relationship between the variables and the graduation rates of
international students. The findings showed that as the student to faculty ratios decrease, there is
a positive relationship with the international students graduating. The other variables that had
relationships with graduation rates were the sector (public versus private) and the international
students majoring in engineering. Factors such as this are ways that institutions can work to help
support international students who come into college with many barriers that can affect their
academic integration in a collegiate environment.
In our study we focused on a data set that was over a six year span (2008 to 2013) and
encompassing 91 different Research I institutions across the country. This study could be easily
replicated within five to ten years to determine if there is any significant change between the
variables as they relate to graduate rates and international students. Any changes could show a
correlation to additional support for international students. From this research and analysis we
hoped to shed light on the relationships between several of the independent variables and
graduation rates, and how institutions can continue to support this population and increase their
graduation rates.
References
About us. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/AboutIPEDS.
Andrade, M. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural integrity. J.
College Student Retention, 8(1), 57-81.
Eldaba, A. (2016). An innovative model to design an academic and social development
program for international college students. College Student Journal, 50(2), 171-178.
Fass-Holmes, B. (2016). International undergraduates’ retention, graduation, and time to
degree. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 933-955. Retrieved from
https://jistudents.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/2016-vol-6-no-4.pdf
Geary, D. (2016). How do we get people to interact? international students and the american
experience. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 527.
Hamamura, T., & Laird, P. G. (2014). The effect of perfectionism and acculturative stress
on
levels of depression experienced by east asian international students. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 42(4), 205-217. doi:10.1002/j.2161-
1912.2014.00055.x
Hart, D., & Coates, N. (2011). International student complaint behaviour: Understanding
how east-asian business and management students respond to dissatisfaction during their
university experience. The International Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 57-66.
doi:10.3794/ijme.94.380
Hwang, B. J., Bennett, R., & Beauchemin, J. (2014). International students' utilization of
counseling services. College Student Journal, 48(3), 347.

Institute of International Education (2016). International Students in the United States.
Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Services/Project-Atlas/United-States/International-
Students-In-US#.WEW5zKIrLUI
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012a). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary institutions.
Higher Education, 64(1), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9477-0
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012b). Academic and social integration and persistence of
international students at U.S. two-year institutions. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 36(1), 15-27, doi: 10.1080/10668926.2012.619093
Melius, C. (2014). Successfully integrating international students: A focus on academic,
social, and cultural support [special issue]. Journal of Education Policy, Planning and
Administration, (1), 8-22.
Poyrolzi, 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.
Rosales, M. (2014). How can we be better prepared to serve our international students
[special issue]. Journal of Education Policy, Planning and Administration, (1), 23-35.
Schulte, S., & Choudaha, R. (2014). Improving the experiences of international
students.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(6), 52-58.
doi:10.1080/00091383.2014.969184
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (March, 2016). Student and exchange visitor
information system [PDF document]. Retrieved from
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2016/sevis-bythenumbers-
0416.pdf
U.S. News (2015). Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/nyu-2785/academics
Appendix
Chart A: This chart shows the Raw Descriptive Statistics and the Multiple Regression Results
(OLS). The coding for the variables can be seen below:
● Grad - Graduation Rates
● Sector - Public (0) vs. Private (1) institutions
● RS - Remedial Services offered (1 - yes, 0 - no)
● D - Domestic Students
● I - International Students
● DENG - Domestic Engineering Students
● IENG - International Engineering Students
● DBIO - Domestic Biological Systems Students
● IBIO - International Biological Systems Students
● DBUS - Domestic Business Students
● IBUS - International Business Students
● SFR - Student to Faculty Ratio
Institution Name
Arizona State University-Tempe
Boston University
Brown University
Carnegie Mellon University
Case Western Reserve University
Clemson University
Colorado State University-Fort Collins
Cornell University
Florida International University
Florida State University
George Mason University

George Washington University
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus
Iowa State University
Johns Hopkins University
Kansas State University
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical

College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
Northeastern University
Northwestern University
Ohio State University-Main Campus
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus
Purdue University-Main Campus
Rutgers University-New Brunswick
Stony Brook University
Syracuse University
Temple University
Texas A & M University-College Station
Texas Tech University
The University of Tennessee-Knoxville
The University of Texas at Arlington
The University of Texas at Austin
The University of Texas at Dallas
University at Buffalo
University of Alabama at Birmingham
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Irvine
University of California-Los Angeles
University of California-Riverside
University of California-San Diego
University of California-Santa Barbara
University of California-Santa Cruz
University of Central Florida

University of Cincinnati-Main Campus
University of Colorado Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii at Manoa
University of Houston
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Louisville
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
University of Miami
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities

University of Mississippi
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
University of New Mexico-Main Campus
University of North Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus
University of South Carolina-Columbia
University of South Florida-Main Campus
University of Southern California
University of Utah
University of Virginia-Main Campus
University of Washington-Seattle Campus
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Virginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Washington State University
Washington University in St Louis
Wayne State University
West Virginia University

Edhe5106finalpaper 2 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Edhe5106finalpaper 2 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Running head: INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS & ACADEMIC INTEGRATION 1

International Students & Academic Integration

International students will be examined in a quantitative study regarding their academic

classifications of Research I Universities, public, four-year or above, and private not-for-profit,

Keywords: International students, academic integration, graduation rates, persistence

International Students & Academic Integration

As global education becomes an imperative component to higher education in the United

States, a deeper understanding of international student health and well-being becomes

recruitment of international students. However, a gap in the literature on international student

impact international students’ graduation rates as compared to domestic students?

Academic integration refers to involvement in academic activities such as faculty-student

international students as a group face a higher likelihood of experiencing academic challenges

The number of international students enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions

Mamiseishvili, 2012a; Melius, 2014).

Persistence rates of international students in general is largely unreported and under

institutions is increasing, these students still make up a small percentage of an institution’s

Researchers defined “satisfaction” as international students’ positive feelings toward

2016, p. 948). Mamiseishvili’s (2012b) study on international community college students

neglect to collect persistence rates of international students (Mamiseishvili, 2012a).

International students have unique struggles on host campuses, including language

satisfaction, maladaptive perfectionism, and depression in 52 East Asian international students

importance of developing and improving programs to support the transition.

According to Greary (2016), an international student’s ability to successfully integrate

“incorporate several classes in ESL coursework...The classes are restructured to provide a

A variety of both qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches exist to assess

or semi-structured techniques to carry out the assessment or evaluation of the independent

telephone, longitudinal, etc.), and other methods of data collection.

Though qualitative methods present considerable benefits to researching international

sizes across more universities, and generalize our results.

York University, Northeastern University, University of Illinois, and University of Southern

Research I Universities, public, four-year or above, and private not-for-profit, four-year or

and greatest amount of information regarding our population of international students.

Population and Sample

The international student population at universities in the U.S. is a culturally and

International student characteristics include extreme ideals of perfectionism and academic

(Hamamura & Laird, 2014).

Method of Contact and Data Collection

As mentioned previously, there were 115 institutions with information available on

eliminated the possibility of using logistic regression.

institutions with information on our variables.

Findings and Discussion

less than 0.05.

students studying Business, domestic students studying Biological Sciences, international

statistically significant in their relationships with graduation rates.

public institutions at a higher level.

relationship between student to faculty ratios and graduation rates.

Mechanical versus Civil Engineering).

relationship with graduation rates.

incorrect interpretations in examining meaningful relationships. In an ideal situation, all of the

by reaching out to the universities involved.

(Institute of International Education, 2016). International students experience different barriers

create additional areas of support for international students.

academic integration in a collegiate environment.

About us. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/AboutIPEDS.

Andrade, M. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural integrity. J.

College Student Retention, 8(1), 57-81.

Eldaba, A. (2016). An innovative model to design an academic and social development

Fass-Holmes, B. (2016). International undergraduates’ retention, graduation, and time to

degree. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 933-955. Retrieved from

experience. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 527.

levels of depression experienced by east asian international students. Journal of

Multicultural Counseling and Development, 42(4), 205-217. doi:10.1002/j.2161-

university experience. The International Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 57-66.