Overseas Students in Higher Education

Issues in Teaching and Learning

Robert Harris, David McNamara, Professor David Mcnamara

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN: 9780415131995
• eBook ISBN: 9781134788231
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Higher education institutions are increasingly concerned with the quality of their teaching and learning experiences they provide for students, including the increasing number from overseas. In this text, some of the leading authorities in the field bring together current research and sound practical advice on the provision of quality teaching and learning for overseas students. The text represents a wide range of overseas students' experiences from the Pacific Rim, China and the European Community.

Part I
Principles: perspectives and orientation

Chapter 1
The experience of being an overseas student

Adrian Furnham

INTRODUCTION

What is it like being a foreign student? Do they do as well as natives? How well do they cope with the culture of the country in which they are studying? Is there much evidence of psychological distress among foreign students the world over? Foreign and exchange students have been the topic of academic research for a long time (Bock 1970; Brislin 1979; Byrnes 1966; Tornbiorn 1982; Zwingmann and Gunn 1963). Over thirty years ago in a book delightfully entitled Colonial Students, Carey (1956) looked at how different groups of students adapted to life in Britain. Consistent themes running through this book were the excessively optimistic, followed by the chronically disillusioned expectations of the students. Another theme was the importance of the British beliefs about and attitudes to the students. Carey wrote:

Both favourable and unfavourable stereotypes exist in relation to Asians and Africans: thus Asians are ‘highly civilised’, ‘very brainy’, philosophers who often perform truly astounding feats of memory; but they are also ‘treacherous’, cunning and cruel; ‘you can’t trust any of them’. Africans, on the other hand, are either ‘savage’ and ‘primitive’, with enormous sexual powers, or alternatively kind, loyal darkies, childlike and grateful for any kindness bestowed on them. But it is significant that of the stereotypes about Asians, some at least are unqualifiedly favourable; while those about Africans are favourable only in a highly patronising way, and hence unacceptable to African students.

(Carey 1956: 145)

In the mid 1960s, two psychologists arranged an essay competition for foreign students concerning their reactions to Britain (Tajfel and Dawson 1965). The best were published in a book entitled Disappointed Guests and they found, in a content analysis of these essays, six times as many negative and unfavourable comments as favourable ones. Overseas students found the British profoundly ignorant of their native country, reserved, patronising, superior, conservative, critical and unfriendly!

The experience of studying in a foreign country leaves a powerful impression on young people that may last all their lives. For a few the experience is negative and they recall the loneliness and rejection of the foreign country, but for most the experience is very enriching so much so that some people prefer never to return home and to continue living in their new country. As a result of the increase in student movement much has been written on this topic (Jenkins 1983; Kagan and Cohen 1990; Searle and Ward 1990). The diversity, quality and increase in the number of studies on ‘foreign’ or international students is probably a function of a number of issues (Crano and Crano 1993; Furukawa and Shibayama 1993, 1994; Kagan and Cohen 1990; Harris 1995; Sandhu 1994). These include the large increase in their numbers; the fact that a significant number fail, drop out or have serious psychological and medical problems whilst abroad and problems of adapting once they return; developing theoretical work on the experience of sojourners and the existence of specialist academic journals that focus on the issues associated with foreign student exchange.

Furnham and Tresize (1983) have suggested that problems facing the foreign student are threefold: problems of living in a foreign culture (racial discrimination, language problems, accommodation difficulties, separation reactions, dietary restrictions, financial stress, loneliness, etc.); problems of late-adolescents/young adults asserting their emotional and intellectual independence; and the academic problems associated with higher educational study. It is no wonder then that some experience problems. For some young people it is the most important experience of their lives and one that turns them into loyal advocates of the country they study in. But even the most successful adaptation has its problems. This chapter will focus some of the more important processes associated with the experience of being a foreign or overseas student.

CULTURE SHOCK: THE SHOCK OF THE NEW

The culture shock ‘hypothesis’ or ‘concept’ implies that the experience of visiting or living in a new culture is an unpleasant surprise or shock, partly because it is unexpected, and partly because it may lead to a negative evaluation of one’s own and/or the other culture.

The anthropologist Oberg (1960) was the first to have used the term.

In a brief and largely anecdotal article he mentions at least six aspects of culture shock. These include:

• Strain due to the effort required to make necessary psychological adaptions.
• A sense of loss and feelings of deprivation in regard to friends, status, profession, and possessions.
• Being rejected by and/or rejecting members of a new culture.
• Confusion in role, role expectations, values, feeling and self-identity.
• Surprise, anxiety, even disgust and indignation after becoming aware of cultural differences.
• Feelings of impotence due to not being able to cope with the new environment.

The flavour of Oberg’s observations may be gathered from this quotation:

Culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues include the thousand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations of daily life. . . . All of us depend for our peace of mind and our efficacy on hundreds of these cures, most of which we are not consciously aware. Some of the symptoms of culture shock are: excessive washing of the hands; concern over drinking water, food, dishes, and bedding; fear of physical contact with attendants or servants; the absent-minded, far-away stare (sometimes called ‘the tropical stare’); a feeling of helplessness and a desire for dependence of long-term residents of one’s own nationality; fits of anger over delays and other minor frustrations; delay and outright refusal to learn the language of the host country; excessive fear of being cheated, robbed or injured; great concern over minor pains and eruptions of the skin and finally, the terrible longing to be back home.

(Oberg 1960: 176)

Research since Oberg has identified culture shock as a frequently occurring process of adaption to cultural differences. Others have attempted to improve and extend Oberg’s definition and concept of culture shock. Guthrie (1975) has used the term culture fatigue, Smalley (1963) language shock, Byrnes (1966) role shock and Ball-Rokeach (1973) pervasive ambiguity. In doing so different researchers have simply placed the emphasis on different problems – such as language, physical irritability and role ambiguity. Bock (1970) has described culture shock as primarily an emotional reaction that follows from not being able to understand, control and predict another’s behaviour. When customary experiences no longer seem relevant or applicable, people’s usual behaviour changes to becoming ‘unusual’. Lack of familiarity with environment (etiquette, ritual) has this effect, as do the experiences of use of time (Hall 1959). This theme is reiterated by all writers in the field (Lundsteldt 1963; Hays 1972).

Culture shock is seen as a temporary stress reaction where salient psychological and physical rewards are generally uncertain, and hence difficult to control or predict. Thus a person is anxious, confused and apparently apathetic until he or she has had time to develop a new set of cognitive constructs to understand and enact the appropriate behaviour. Writers about culture shock have often referred to individuals lacking points of reference, social norms and rules to guide their actions and understand others’ behaviour. This is very similar to the attributes studied under the heading of alienation and anomie, which include powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, self and social estrangement, and social isolation. In addition, ideas associated with anxiety pervade the culture shock literature. Observers have pointed to a continuous general ‘free-floating’ anxiety which affects people’s normal behaviour. Lack of self-confidence, distrust of others and psychosomatic complaints are also common (May 1970). Furthermore, people appear to lose their inventiveness and spontaneity, and become obsessively concerned with orderliness (Nash 1967).

Most of the culture shock investigations have been descriptive, in that they have attempted to list the various difficulties that sojourners experience, and their typical reactions. Less attention has been paid to explain for whom the shock will be more or less intense (for example the old or the less educated); what determines which reaction a person is likely to experience; how long they remain in a period of shock, and so forth. The literature seems to suggest that all people will suffer culture shock to some extent, which is always thought of as being unpleasant and stressful. This assumption needs to be empirically tested. In theory some people need not experience any negative aspects of shock: instead they may seek out these experiences for their enjoyment. Sensation-seekers, for instance, might be expected not to suffer any adverse effects but to enjoy the highly arousing stimuli of the unfamiliar. People with multi-cultural backgrounds or experiences may also adapt more successfully. For instance, Adler (1975) and David (1971) have stated that although culture shock is more often associated with negative consequences, it may, in mild doses, be important for self-development and personal growth. Culture shock is seen as a transitional experience which can result in the adoption of new values, attitudes and behaviour patterns. As Adler remarks:

In the encounter with another culture the individual gains new experiential knowledge by coming to understand the roots of his or her own ethnocentrism and by gaining new perspectives and outlooks on the nature of culture. . . . Paradoxically, the more one is capable of experiencing new and different dimensions of human diversity, the more one learns of oneself.

(Adler 1975: 22)

Thus, although different writers have put emphases on different aspects of culture shock, there is by-and-large agreement that exposure to new culture is stressful. Fewer researchers have seen the positive side of culture shock, whether for those individuals who revel in exciting and different environments, or for those whose initial discomfort leads to personal growth. The quality and quantity of culture shock has been shown to be related to the amount of difference between the visitors’ (sojourners’, managers’) culture and the culture of the country they are visiting or working in. These differences refer to the numerous differences in social beliefs and behaviours.

HOMESICKNESS AND THE FOREIGN STUDENT

References to homesickness occur in all languages over many centuries. In the eighteenth century, medical texts occasionally explained pathology in terms of homesickness. It is, of course, experienced by people who move within rather than between countries as they too have left their home. The key psychological features of homesickness appear to be a strong preoccupation with thoughts of home, a perceived need to go home, a sense of grief for the home (people, place and things) and a concurrent feeling of unhappiness, dis–ease and disorientation in the new place which is conspicuously not home.

In a number of studies, Fisher investigated the causes and correlates of homesickness (Fisher et al. 1985; Fisher and Hood 1987). While she was unable to identify factors which were good predictors of homesickness, she did find a number of factors that clearly discriminated between students who did not report homesickness and those who did. They included:

• they lived further from home;
• the university they were attending was not their first choice;
• they were less satisfied with their current residence;
• they were less satisfied with present, relative to past, friendships;
• they expected their friendships to be better in the future than at present.

Fisher’s studies also identified an association between homesickness reporting and a greater number of cognitive failures, poor concentration, handing in work late and decrements in work quality. These data suggest that homesickness is a potentially important phenomenon that may exercise a considerable influence on academic performance, at least over the short term. More recently, Brewin et al. (1989) investigated some of the determinants of homesickness and reactions to homesickness in two samples of first-year English psychology students who had left home for the first time. Homesickness was found to be a reasonably common but short-lived phenomenon, and was predicted longitudinally by greater self-reported dependency on other people and by higher estimates of the frequency of homesickness among students in general. Although homesickness was equally common in men and women, women were much more likely to discuss their feelings with others and to respond by being more affiliative. Greater anxiety and depression about homesickness were also associated with more confiding behaviour. There was a suggestion that homesick male students were more likely to seek out others, the more common they perceived homesickness to be. They note:

Like examination failure, homesickness appears to be a consistent source of stress to a considerable number of students, and lends itself to the testing of hypotheses about aetiology and coping behaviours. The present study has identified attitudinal precursors of homesickness that implicate attachment style and expectations about the transition to university. . . . Further research is necessary to confirm these findings and to clarify the meaning of homesickness. For example, although it is often assumed to be a wholly negative experience, for some individuals homesickness may represent a positive affirmation of the importance of their personal relationships rather than an unwanted interference in the transition to a new environment.

(Brewin et al. 1989: 476)

SOCIAL SUPPORT AND FRIENDSHIP NETWORKS

To what extent do foreign students’ friendship networks buffer them against culture shock? Does the presence of a reasonably large number of students from the same area (country, region, linguistic area) inoculate against culture shock? Despite current interest in the social support hypothesis, little work has been done on the social support and social networks of foreign students (for a review see Church 1982). The voluminous literature on social networks and social support suggests that these factors reduce stress by providing the individual with information, emotional, monetary and moral support. According to Cobb (1976) social support provides a person with three sorts of information: namely that they are cared for and loved; esteemed and valued; and that they belong to a network of communication and mutual obligation. Hence it may be predicted that foreign students with a strong and supportive friendship network may be happier and better adjusted than those without such a network.

Although a great deal of work has been done on the friendship networks of students, very little has been done on the friendship networks and preferences of foreign students, despite its obvious and important application. The work of Bochner is, however, an important exception. Recently, Bochner and his co-workers (Bochner et al. 1976, 1977; Bochner and Orr 1979; Furnham and Bochner 1986) have shown some interesting results concerning the friendship networks of foreign students. In a study of foreign students in Hawaii, Bochner et al. (1977) provided a functional model for the development of overseas students’ friendship patterns stating that sojourners belong to three distinct social networks. They are:

• A primary, monocultural network, consisting of close friendships with other sojourning compatriots. The main function of the co-national networks is to provide a setting in which ethnic and cultural values can be rehearsed and expressed.
• A secondary, bi-cultural network consisting of bonds between sojourners and significant host nationals such as academics, students, advisors and government officials. The main function of this network is to facilitate instrumentally the academic and professional aspirations of the sojourners.
• A third multi-cultural network of friends and acquaintances. The main function of this network is to provide companionship for recreational, ‘non-cultural’ and non-task oriented activities.

As Bochner et al. (1977) have noted:

Thus monocultural (co-national) bonds are of vital importance to foreign students, and should therefore not be administratively interfered with, regulated against, obstructed, or sneered at. On the contrary, such bonds should be encouraged and, if possible, shaped to become more open to bi- or multi-cultural influences. In particular, mediating individuals who function as links between different cultural networks, should be identified and supported. Bi-cultural (foreign student–host national) bonds should be expanded to reach beyond their initial task-orientated and instrumental function. This often happens spontaneously, and ways and means should be found to capitalize on this tendency. Multi-cultural associations (bonds between non-compatriot foreign students) could likewise be expanded beyond their recreation-oriented function toward the nonsuperficial learning of each other’s cultures.

(Bochner et al. 1977: 292)

Although Bochner did not interpret his findings within a social network framework, others have found that the degree of social interaction between the host national and the sojourner is related to the latter’s adjustment. For example, Sewell and Davidson (1961) reported a significant relationship between the social interaction of Scandinavian students with Americans and their satisfaction with their sojourn. Richardson (1974) noted a difference in the friendship patterns of satisfied as opposed to dissatisfied British migrants to Australia having more compatriot and fewer host national friends. Sellitz and Cook (1962) found that sojourners who had at least one close host national friend experienced fewer problems than sojourners with no close host national friends. Based on the findings of a study in Australia, Au (1969) reported that the degree of personal contact between Chinese-Malaysian students and host nationals positively related to the student’s attitude towards Australia.

The social support hypothesis places more importance on the quality and quantity of support compared to the nature (i.e. the nationality) or source of that support, and would thus expect the degree of adjustment to be related simply to these quantity and quality aspects of one’s social networks. Others, however, such as Bochner (1982) place more emphasis on the source of support and would suggest that the social support and help from a host national network is of far greater importance for adjustment compared to that from a co-national network. It is, of course, possible that these two approaches are confounded; that is, the fact that the support complex from a co-national (who possibly shares the same language, values, religion, etc.) is qualitatively different from one that comes from a host national. Furnham and Alibhai (1985) replicated and extended Bochner’s work and found that foreign students showed a stronger preference for co-nationals than host nationals and other nationals.

WHAT CAUSES CULTURE SHOCK AND POOR ADAPTATION?

The extensive but different educational psychological, psychiatric and sociological literature on sojourners’ adjustment has been heavy on data but light on theory. Various commonsensical hypotheses have been found wanting, while most research tends to be more exploratory than specifically theory-testing. The explanation of why foreign students experience difficulty, however...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Principles: perspectives and orientation
• Part II: Practice: supporting learning
• Bibliography