International Multilingual Research Journal

ISSN: 1931-3152 (Print) 1931-3160 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmrj20

The Effects of English Language Proficiency on

Adjustment to University Life

Maureen Snow Andrade

To cite this article: Maureen Snow Andrade (2009) The Effects of English Language Proficiency
on Adjustment to University Life, International Multilingual Research Journal, 3:1, 16-34, DOI:
10.1080/19313150802668249

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313150802668249

Published online: 10 Feb 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 85123

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmrj20
International Multilingual Research Journal, 3: 16–34, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1931-3152 print / 1931-3160 online
DOI: 10.1080/19313150802668249

The Effects of English Language Proficiency

1931-3160 Multilingual Research Journal,
1931-3152
HMRJ
International Journal Vol. 3, No. 1, December 2008: pp. 1–39

on Adjustment to University Life

Maureen Snow Andrade

English Proficiency and University Life
ANDRADE

University College, Utah Valley University

Higher education institutions in the United States recognize the economic and educational benefits
of international students. Although non-native English speakers (NNES) submit evidence of English
language proficiency for admission purposes, many struggle with the demands of English. This
study draws on qualitative and quantitative data to provide insights into the international student
experience from the perspectives of students and faculty. It examines how English language profi-
ciency affects academic and social adjustment, identifies useful types of support, and considers the
effects of English proficiency on intercultural learning. Students are generally satisfied with their
proficiency, appreciate English as a Second Language courses, and feel their English is improved
through course work and social interaction. Professors feel students’ skills are adequate but could be
improved, and report adjusting their teaching approaches to accommodate NNES. Intercultural
interaction aids English development and intercultural growth, but students may tend to remain
within their own linguistic groups.
Keywords: international students, English proficiency, intercultural learning

International student enrollments in institutions of higher education in the United States declined
from 2003 to 2006. The most significant decreases were 2.4% in 2003 to 2004 and 1.3% in 2004
to 2005 (Institute of International Education, 2007). Although enrollment trends are currently
more positive, they have yet to compensate for previous years of declining or flat enrollments.
One benefit of the recent enrollment decreases, however, has been greater awareness that the
United States must consider the strength of its position in the “global competition for talent”
(Council of Graduate Schools, 2006, p. 1) rather than assuming it will remain the leading destination.
One motivation for hosting international students is economic. International students and
their families contribute nearly $14.5 billion dollars annually to the economy (Bhandari &
Chow, 2007). International students also support intercultural learning goals. Many institutions
are internationalizing their universities “both to enhance local and international students’ experi-
ences on campus and to prepare them to function in their careers and the larger society” (Cheng,
Myles, & Curtis, 2004, p. 50). In addition, international graduate students make significant con-
tributions to institutional research agendas and teach undergraduate courses (NAFSA [Associa-
tion of International Educators], 2003).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maureen Snow Andrade, University College, Utah
Valley University, 800 W. University Parkway, MS 177, Orem, UT 84058. E-mail: maureen.andrade@uvu.edu
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 17

International students, many of whom are non-native English speakers (NNES), are
challenged by academic language demands and a new culture. Differences in educational
systems and expectations, listening skills, professors’ use of humor and examples, quantity of
reading, direct writing styles, critical analyses, class participation, oral communication, and
vocabulary present difficulties (Berman & Cheng, 2001; Holmes, 2004; Lee, 1997). Professors
perceive international students to have difficulty with oral and written communication, which
can affect course performance (Trice, 2003).
English proficiency also affects social interaction. Local students may resist working with
international students on group projects because of their weak writing or presentation skills
(Coleman, 1997; Parks & Raymond, 2004). International students may experience more loneli-
ness and homesickness than domestic students (Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002) and fail to interact
socially due to the demands of course work (Lewthwaite, 1996). Evidence shows that interna-
tional students find it difficult to create friendships with their host country peers (Hechanova-
Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & Van Horn, 2002; Jacob & Greggo, 2001; Parks & Raymond,
2004; Schutz & Richards, 2003), although such interactions benefit adjustment (Al-Sharideh &
Goe, 1998; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002).
Given the importance of international students to higher education, greater understanding of
their adjustment and needs is critical. This study draws on qualitative and quantitative data to
provide insights into the international student experience. Few previous studies have focused on
the perceptions of professors toward NNES or their pedagogical methods for accommodating
them. This study examines how English language proficiency affects academic and social
adjustment, identifying the views of both international students and professors. The research
questions follow:
RQ1. According to students and faculty, how does English language proficiency affect the
adjustment of international students?
RQ2. What types of support for English language development do students and faculty feel
are useful?
RQ3. According to students and faculty, what is the relation between English language profi-
ciency and intercultural learning?
The terms English as a second language (ESL), NNES, and international students are used
synonymously in this study, all referring to students who speak English as an additional
language and who are in the United States on student visas.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Although academic and social adjustment challenges related to English proficiency and
cultural differences are evident, findings are inconclusive regarding the effects of
proficiency (as measured by test scores) on academic achievement (e.g., see Berman &
Cheng, 2001; Messner & Liu, 1995; Stoynoff, 1997). This study focuses on perceptions of
students and faculty regarding the significance of English skills on academics, social life,
and overall adjustment. It is based on the premise that interaction with competent speakers
of a language has positive effects on acquisition (Long, 1996). Meaningful input at the
approximate level of the learner or just beyond is theorized to be central to acquisition
18 ANDRADE

(Krashen, 1985), whereas output provides learners with a way of testing their hypotheses
about the target language (Swain, 1995).
Similarly, interaction with representatives of the target language and culture impacts affec-
tive factors related to acquisition. Negative stereotypes toward learners can affect self-esteem,
result in negative attitudes regarding the target language and culture, and undermine acquisition
(Richard-Amato, 2003). Motivation, which has been categorized as two types—integrative (the
desire to integrate with members of the target language group) and instrumental (learning the
language to obtain a goal; Gardner & Lambert, 1972) also impacts acquisition, although it
remains unclear which type may have a more positive role.
Cultural adjustment is also affected by interaction. Students interact less with their hosts if
they perceive that cultural differences are great, but experience less culture shock if they do
interact (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). Although strong ties with co-cultural students is an
important factor in building students’ self-esteem, which is theorized to positively impact
academic success and persistence, too many ties with co-cultural students interferes with adjust-
ment and must be balanced with close ties to Americans (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998). When stu-
dents do not interact with the host culture, they fail to learn the sociocultural rules for effective
interaction and follow their own cultural rules, which results in communication problems (Chap-
delaine & Alexitch, 2004). Furthermore, satisfaction with social networks has a more positive
effect on easing loneliness and increasing contentment than does the number of close friends
(Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002).
Cultural learning is a positive result of interaction, although it involves more than this.
Recent models depict adjustment as an iterative process in which individuals adjust gradually
and unevenly as they encounter various aspects of the culture (e.g., see Anderson, 1994;
Bennett, 1998; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Lo Bianco, 2003, 2004; Taylor, 1994). They also
emphasize responses to cultural incidents and strategies for managing stressful situations.
Commonalities among current models include the idea that cultural encounters cause individuals
to become aware of their own and others’ cultures. As individuals interact in the new culture,
they face obstacles or disequilibrium leading to a variety of individual responses. Increased
understanding of the new culture and the ability to cope depends on these responses.
Student self-reports of difficulties with English and related negative effects on their academic
and social lives are well established. Less common are studies examining professors’ experi-
ences with NNES. One study, however, demonstrated that professors judged the majority of
writing samples of NNES to need English support compared to very few of those of native
English speakers (NES; Ramburuth, 2001). Interviews uncovered the fact that some professors
modified their grading criteria for NNES. The latter finding raises the question of how profes-
sors approach teaching NNES, whether they modify their pedagogical approaches, simply
expect NNES to compete with NES, or make allowances for English weaknesses.
In some cases, professors feel that international students’ difficulties with English skills
negatively impact academic performance and communication, and contribute to segregation and
ineffective group work (Trice, 2003). They express concerns about the appropriateness of the
curriculum for international students’ future employment, helping American students feel com-
fortable with international students, and are uncertain as to how to address international
students’ needs. Professors exhibit varying views about international students from lack of
awareness, concern about the extra amount of time required to work with them, deep apprecia-
tion of their value, and considering them a threat to funding and reputation.
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 19

Another relevant area to this study is the types of student support offered to international
students. These typically include intensive English programs, which often enroll non-matriculated
students and are not credit bearing. Content-based language learning models in which students
are concurrently enrolled in an ESL classes and introductory level university courses (Snow &
Kamhi-Stein, 1997) may also be used. English language support may involve technology (Wu,
Griffiths, Wisker, Waller, & Illes, 2001), supplemental courses (Beasley & Pearson, 1999), or
study buddies (Blakely, 1995; Mendelsohn, 2002). Peer partnership programs to aid social
adjustment are also common (Abe, Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Jacob & Greggo, 2001; Shigaki
& Smith, 1997). Some of the studies cited here are descriptive, whereas others report positive
effects on learning or self-reported satisfaction and adjustment.
In sum, based on student and faculty reports, the English language skills of NNES affect aca-
demic and social adjustment. The stronger students’ English skills, presumably, the fewer chal-
lenges they will face in their studies, social life, and adjustment. Students may be successful
academically, despite weaknesses in English, particularly if professors adjust standards and
grading criteria. Interaction in the target language and culture supports acquisition, adjustment,
and cultural learning. Although interaction with host country representatives alone cannot be
equated with intercultural learning or understanding, the latter will not occur without it.

METHOD

The context for the study is a private, religiously affiliated, undergraduate university with a large
percentage of international students—approximately 50% of the total enrollment of 2,400. The
international students are primarily NNES from Asia and the Pacific Islands. The majority of
students (95%) are of the same religious faith. The university recruits international students who
belong to the sponsoring religious organization and may not have the opportunity to obtain
higher education at home due to elitist educational systems or financial constraints. The univer-
sity financially sponsors the majority of them through a work-study program. The students
generally plan to return home after graduation.
NNES are required to have a score of 475 on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (approx-
imately 5.5 on the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) or a B2 (independent
user) on the Common European Framework) with the understanding they will be tested upon arrival
to determine the need for enrollment in credit-bearing English language courses. Students in
advanced-level ESL courses may be concurrently enrolled in other university courses. The ESL pro-
gram has a critical role given the importance of international students to the mission of the univer-
sity. Courses have an academic focus, and the program has a reputation for high standards.
Given its mission to provide an academic and spiritual educational experience, and given its
charge to provide educational opportunities for individuals from a particular geographical
region, the university has a specific goal to help students (international and domestic) develop
intercultural understanding and cultural appreciation. These skills allow graduates to solve prob-
lems and promote peace in global contexts through their professions and in society.
The university currently has little formal programming or curriculum designed to support this
goal, however. It has orchestrated a diverse representation of students from its target area and
the United States, and provided opportunities for interaction for purposes of English language
acquisition for the NNES and for increased intercultural understanding for all students. Culture
20 ANDRADE

clubs have strong student support and sponsor a number of events. Students associate closely
with each other in the classroom, in church activities, and in daily life. The campus is small,
residential, and class size is small (an average of 18 students), all of which provide natural
opportunities for interaction.
Over the past several years, the university has increased its international student population
from approximately 35% to the current 50%. With this increase, administrators are concerned
about the effects of such a large percentage of NNES on language acquisition, intercultural
interaction, and academic standards, as students could spend the majority of time within their
own linguistic and cultural groups to the detriment of English language development and inter-
cultural growth. Classroom instruction and academic standards could be impacted if English
skills decline. Data indicating adjustment factors for international students, their impact on
classroom instruction, their experiences learning and using English, and the degree to which
intercultural learning goals are perceived is important to the institution. As such, a committee
collected data from a variety of sources related to these factors. The researcher was a member of
this committee. These data sources informed the research questions.

Participants and Data Collection

The first data source is student interviews. NNES in their final semester were randomly selected
for face-to-face interviews with a trained student research assistant, also a NNES. This student
researcher was selected to allow participants to be candid in their responses. Interviews were
recorded and transcribed. Over a 2-year period (2004–2006), more than one half (60.8%) of the
304 NNES in their senior year were invited to participate. Twenty percent, or 36 students,
responded to the e-mail invitation. (The low response could be due to a lack of incentive for
participation). Of these, 26 were from Asia, 6 from the Pacific Islands, 2 from South America,
and 1 from Europe. Seventy-five percent were female, and 25% were male. (Males comprise
42% of the overall enrollment; it is unknown why more females than males responded, but it
could be because the research assistant was a female.)
Topics discussed were educational goals, level of satisfaction with English proficiency,
factors affecting adjustment and English language development, suggestions for new interna-
tional students, and future goals related to English use. Transcriptions were analyzed to identify
points of commonality in experiences and codes assigned representing possible themes (Glesne,
1999; Tesch, 1990). Using the constant comparative method to examine information that over-
lapped, was unique, or did not fit emerging categories, and guided by the purpose of the study
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Tesch, 1990), central themes were identi-
fied. This method of analysis was followed for other qualitative data in the study as well.
Student viewpoints were gathered through two Web-based surveys (Eggington, 2003). One
focused on English language usage and attitudes and was administered to all NNES. A total of
449 NNES out of a possible 965 (the total number of NNES at the university) participated for a
response rate of 46.5%. Sixty-two percent of the respondents were from Asia, 28.9% from the
Pacific, and 9.1% from other countries. The majority (64%) were female. The other survey was
sent to 2,423 alumni in 2005, and had an overall response rate of 31.9%. Of these, 24.7% of the
respondents were NNES with the following geographical representations: 18.7% from Asia,
12.1% from the Pacific, and 3.2% from other countries. Male and female representation was
equal. Questions focused on alumni satisfaction with various aspects of their experience at the
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 21

university and how it has contributed to their careers and personal lives. Although the response
rate was low, the information provides an additional perspective on the issues.
Faculty perspectives were derived from a Web-based survey and focus groups. The survey
was administered in the Fall of 2005, yielding a response rate of 51%, with 93 of the 183 faculty
(full and part time) participating. As class size at the university averages 18 students, faculty
generally have had close interactions with NNES. Approximately 33% of the faculty described
themselves as having some ESL background; however, differences in their responses were not
statistically significant from those of those without this background. The survey covered the
following areas: estimation of ESL students’ language abilities, impact of having ESL students
in classes, faculty efforts to help ESL students improve, future possibilities for faculty training,
institutional efforts to help ESL students improve, and future institutional possibilities. Gender
was not indicated. The length of time faculty had been at the university varied, with 25.6% of the
respondents indicating 3 to 5 years and 25.6% indicating 16 or more years. The majority of partici-
pants were from the College of Arts and Sciences (68.6%), with 9.3% from the School of Business,
11.6% from the School of Computing, and 10.5% from the School of Education. These numbers
are representative based on the number of faculty in each of these divisions.
Three focus groups with approximately 20 to 30 professors in each were held in the Winter of
2006 to share information from the student and faculty surveys and to get additional input on
issues related to NNES. Facilitators provided an overview of findings and invited discussions
related to issues such as the following: (a) Based on the findings, is there a problem with English
language proficiency and intercultural learning at the university? (b) Who is responsible for
addressing these issues (i.e., faculty, students)? (c) What should be done to support English
language learning and intercultural goals and how?
The final data source was the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), a standard-
ized instrument examining students’ educational experiences. The survey is e-mailed yearly to
random samples of first- and fourth-year students. Questions focus on students’ academic and
social engagement such as quantity of reading and writing; frequency of class participation;
depth of learning; time spent studying; quality of relationships with peers, faculty, and adminis-
trators; satisfaction with support services, and participation in extracurricular activities. The
respondent pool represents 916 international students over a 4-year period from 2003 to 2006.
Response rates averaged 59% for first-year students and 43% for fourth-year students.
Questions related to student engagement with diversity were considered relevant to this study.
The face and construct validity of the NSSE are strong, and psychometric properties achieve
recommended levels (Kuh, 2004).

Data Analysis and Limitations

Methods for analyzing the qualitative data (interviews and focus groups) were explained earlier.
All of the surveys were based on 7-point Likert-type scales, as follows: 1 (not applicable),
2 (disagree strongly), 3 (disagree), 4 (somewhat disagree), 5 (somewhat agree), 6 (agree), and
7 (agree strongly). Descriptor variations for this scale are explained in the findings. The
responses were analyzed using the statistical software package SPSS to determine numeric
means and standard deviations for each question for the Likert-scaled data.
The data sources described are broad, containing more information than pertains to this
study. However, they provide insights into the research questions and triangulate the findings, as
22 ANDRADE

does obtaining perspectives from both faculty and students. Limitations include participant self-
selection and self-reported data. Also, the institution may be unique in its large percentage of
international students, the type of international student it enrolls, and its mission. Furthermore,
as qualitative approaches are exploratory and represent the experiences of only the participants,
the related findings may not be representative. Despite this, the issue of English language profi-
ciency and its effects on academic and social adjustment are of importance to all institutions
admitting NNES. The role of interaction in language acquisition and intercultural learning and
faculty attitudes toward NNES and their pedagogical strategies are significant topics.

FINDINGS

The research questions focus on three aspects of the international student experience as related
to English language proficiency: adjustment challenges, support, and intercultural learning.
Each of these is discussed. Views from both students and faculty members are presented for the
first two areas.

Adjustment Challenges

Both students and faculty perceived some challenges related to English language proficiency;
however, findings were generally positive in that students felt their English skills had progressed
while at the university, enabling them to satisfactorily complete courses and make friends, and
faculty felt that most NNES competed favorably with NES in the classroom. We examine the
student perspective first, followed by that of faculty. Because the language usage student survey
and the faculty survey were developed at different times by different parties and for different
purposes, they are not parallel. However, both provide insights into student and faculty perspec-
tives of English language proficiency and its relation to academic and social adjustment.
The student perspective. Interview data demonstrates that English language proficiency
affected students’ experiences at the university in a variety of ways. One area of impact was
interactions in classroom settings. Some students indicated that because they were not required
to speak in their classes, they did not speak at all. Others said that when they needed to partici-
pate, they answered in the shortest sentence possible. Many students were more comfortable in
situations with other international students than NES because they lacked confidence in their
English. One student explained: “I feel more comfortable in a class where many international
students were there. . . . But I was kind of a little bit scared, you know when I speak English . . .
in front of many native speakers.”
Even after having been at the university for 4 years, students had difficulties with English. “I
still have English problem . . . for listening, speaking part, still struggling with vocabulary,
choosing different words. It’s kind of the same like writing. If I write something, I would write
the same words over and over again.” This is partly because students’ primary goal was to study
their major and not to improve their English. One student commented: “There are variety of
interests and different focus and some is on English, is on mathematics, is on statistics, is on
computer science. And by the end of your major, your English is still not that good, but you have
a degree from an American university.”
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 23

Nevertheless, some students felt their English had improved naturally through the study of
general education (GE) and major courses. One student said: “I think I improved my English
when I took the general education courses. . . . We have to read, you know, 30 to 50 pages for
one day. I didn’t much focus on grammar, but through the quantity of the study, you know, I was
able to learn English.” Another student disagreed, commenting that in English classes students
practice their language skills: “. . . but, like you know, astronomy and economy, it doesn’t quite
necessary to develop English skills. I’d rather focus on the information on the text rather than
like learning vocabulary, or grammar or syntax.”
The multicultural campus environment had negative and positive effects on students’ English
skills development. The negative aspect was that students could easily cluster in their own
language groups and not use English much of the time. One student commented: “We have so
many Japanese here, so many Korean here. They’re always together, talk to each other. And I
kind of notice that people who are always with the people who speak their language, their
English is not improving.” The positive aspect was that with so many different language groups
on campus, students were forced to use English to communicate. “In this environment,
definitely it helped us to learn the language. . . . Everybody speaks English. When you commu-
nicate with the others, everything is in English.”
The alumni survey indicates that students’ did not perceive they had serious weaknesses in
English when they arrived on campus and felt their English had improved. Upon entering the
university, 67.3% of the students felt their English language skills were adequate (they had some
weaknesses, but generally managed to get along in most situations), strong (they had very few
problems; they understood others, and others understood them), or very strong (they had no
problems communicating in English). When they left the university, 70.8% felt their English
skills were very strong. In comparison, only 39.2% described their skills as very strong upon
entering the university. The importance of this finding is that students were generally satisfied
with their level of English upon admission and satisfied with their progress at the university,
suggesting that their interactions with others and feedback on their linguistic performance was
mostly positive.
We next examine the English usage survey findings. The 7-point survey scale was as follows:
1 (not applicable), 2 (disagree strongly), 3 (disagree), 4 (somewhat disagree), 5 (somewhat
agree), 6 (agree), and 7 (agree strongly). Table 1 summarizes the results for the questions
related to the role of English language proficiency on adjustment. Although 449 students
responded, some did not answer every question, or some may have selected “not applicable”;
thus, the number of respondents for each question varies.
The responses to the first three questions support the interview and alumni survey findings.
The majority of students felt their English skills were adequate to accomplish their goals and
that their skills had improved. The responses to Questions 4 through 8 indicate that most stu-
dents “somewhat agree” or “agree” they are equally comfortable talking with and developing
close friendships with NNES and NES. Interviews demonstrated some preference for associa-
tions with NNES.
Other responses demonstrate that students have more close friends within their own linguistic
group than with either NES or other NNES. Nearly two-thirds (63.2%) reported that 50% or
more of their close friends spoke their native language. Nearly one half (48.1%) stated that 50%
or more of their close friends were NES, whereas only 29.1% said that 50% or more of their
close friends were other NNES. The latter contradicts the interviews in which students indicated
24 ANDRADE

TABLE 1
Student Views of English Proficiency and Social Interaction

Question n M SD

1. I’m pleased with my English learning experiences at the university. 324 5.82 1.132
2. I am pleased with the progress I’ve made in learning English. 320 5.84 1.007
3. I feel my English abilities are getting better all the time. 332 5.68 1.095
4. I feel comfortable talking in English with native English speakers. 335 5.80 1.083
5. I feel comfortable talking in English with non-native English speakers. 334 5.87 1.017
6. It is easy to develop close friendships with native English speakers at the university. 327 5.61 1.76
7. It is easy to develop close friendships with non-native English speakers at the university. 330 5.75 1.064
8. I can have a long conversation in English with a native English speaker about . . .
(a) my home country. 328 5.93 1.94
(b) my religious beliefs. 331 5.79 1.133
(c) the things I study. 333 5.87 1.064
(d) current events. 329 5.74 1.112

feeling more comfortable with other NNES than with NES. Another contradiction is that 30% of
the students reported speaking English from 60% to 80% of the school day and 42% from 80%
to 100% of the day, suggesting that language clusters are not as pervasive as the interviews
indicated.
The faculty perspective. The purpose of the faculty survey was to determine professors’
views of NNES’ English language proficiency, how proficiency affects teaching and course
work, and strategies professors use to support NNES. The first two points are discussed in this
section.
The survey scale varied depending on the question. For the first set of questions, the 7-point
scale was as follows: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (somewhat
agree), 5 (agree), 6 (strongly agree), and 7 (not applicable). Table 2 summarizes the results for
questions related to faculty estimations of students’ English language proficiency and the degree
to which they make accommodations for NNES. The questions in Table 2 were answered by
varying numbers of respondents as indicated.
Results indicate that faculty do not expect NNES to perform lower than NES, feel that
NNES’ grades are comparable to those of NES, and do not adjust their course content
(Questions 1, 2, & 5); however, they may adjust their delivery (Questions 6 & 7) and, possi-
bly, their grading practices (Questions 3 & 4). They also tend to view NNES’ language skills
as at least somewhat competent (Questions 8, 9, & 10), but seem to agree that students’ skills
could be stronger (Questions 11 & 12). Professors acknowledge a variety of reasons for
NNES struggling in their courses, and agree somewhat that study habits or skills and weak
English proficiency account for students’ difficulties, with cultural background being less of a
factor (Questions 13 & 14).
Table 3 reports faculty views of NNES’ English proficiency on different academic tasks. The
6-point scale was as follows: 1 (almost none), 2 (very few), 3 (some), 4 (many), 5 (almost all),
and 6 (not applicable). The questions are ranked from the highest to the lowest mean.
Table 3 indicates that most faculty feel students have adequate English proficiency to accom-
plish their course work and communicate in classroom situations. Some students may exhibit
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 25

TABLE 2
Faculty Views of Non-Native English Speakers’ English Proficiency

Question n M SD

1. I have a lower expectation for ESL students in my classes. 93 2.58 1.45

2. My ESL students tend to earn a lower grade than native speakers in my classes. 93 2.73 1.48
3. I grade native English speakers and second language speakers by the same standards. 88 3.74 1.01
4. Generally, when grading second language students’ writing, I ignore the grammar 88 3.32 1.38
mistakes and focus on the content.
5. I have to adjust the depth and difficulty of content covered in my class to accommodate 88 2.41 0.86
my ESL students.
6. Having second language students in my classes has little effect on the way I teach. 87 3.26 1.65
7. I have to alter my method of delivery to accommodate my ESL students’ language 88 3.05 0.80
abilities.
8. When ESL students participate in class discussions, other students in my classes have 88 3.08 1.12
difficulty understanding them.
9. ESL students seem confident in their English language ability in my classes. 93 3.61 1.38
10. By the time ESL students get to my upper-division courses, their English language skills 93 3.76 1.91
are generally quite strong.
11. The university should be satisfied with the current level of English proficiency of our 93 2.98 1.40
ESL students.
12. We should raise the level of English proficiency among our ESL students. 87 3.63 1.81
13. Generally, when ESL students struggle with my course requirements it is due to their . . .
(a) study skills. 87 3.77 1.60
(b) study habits. 87 3.92 1.76
(c) cultural background. 87 3.38 1.41
(d) weak English proficiency. 87 3.85 1.46
14. Some ESL students’ unwillingness to participate is more of a cultural issue than an
87 4.5 1.25
English language issue.

Note. ESL = English as a Second Language.

difficulty with writing (Questions 2c, 3a, & 3c) and class discussions (Questions 1e & 2a), pos-
sibly because these are more active and noticeable skills; however, overall, no strong weak-
nesses are apparent.
Survey results were shared with faculty in focus groups and they were given the opportunity
to respond. The focus groups were not taped, but notes were taken. The faculty in the focus
groups felt there was a greater problem with NNES’ English skills than was reflected in the
survey. Some suggested that professors may not want to admit adjusting their courses (i.e.,
decreasing the academic rigor) for NNES, or perhaps they did not perceive they were making
adjustments. Recently hired professors seemed to indicate stronger views that the NNES in their
courses struggled with course content and assignments than did those who had been at the uni-
versity longer, suggesting that over time professors had become accustomed to the English lan-
guage weaknesses of NNES. One business faculty member expressed the difficulty of teaching
entrepreneurship because many international students were unfamiliar with the concept of a free
market economy. Students had considerable difficulty with business terms and lacked the back-
ground knowledge of a typical American student. He attributed NNES’ struggle to lack of back-
ground and weak English skills, but his description suggested the difficulty was related more to
the former than the latter.
26 ANDRADE

TABLE 3
Non-Native English Speakers’ Performance on Academic Tasks: Faculty Views

Question n M SD

1. I feel that ____ of the ESL students in my classes have adequate English language skills to . . .
(a) understand and follow class instructions. 94 4.2 1.23
(b) understand reading assignments. 94 4.1 1.25
(c) give comprehensible, acceptable oral presentations. 94 3.7 1.33
(d) produce comprehensible, acceptable work in writing. 94 3.6 1.35
(e) meaningfully participate in class discussion. 94 3.4 1.32
2. I feel that ___ of the ESL students in my classes . . .
(a) have difficulty expressing themselves clearly in class discussions. 94 2.9 1.09
(b) have difficulty grasping complex subjects that I cover in class. 94 2.8 1.02
(c) have difficulty completing the writing assignments. 94 2.8 1.09
(d) have difficulty understanding the reading assignments. 94 2.7 0.97
(e) have difficulty understanding me when I speak to them. 94 2.5 0.93
3. This is true for ____ of the ESL students in my classes:
(a) I have difficulty understanding the writing my ESL students do on exams such as short- 94 3.02 1.43
answer and essay questions.
(b) I have difficulty understanding my ESL students when they read a passage out loud in 94 2.8 1.58
class.
(c) I have difficulty understanding the writing my ESL students do as homework. 94 2.8 1.41
(d) I have difficulty understanding my ESL students when they speak to me. 94 2.5 1.21

Note. ESL = English as a Second Language.

Support

To answer the second research question, data was analyzed from student interviews, the student
language use survey, the faculty survey, and faculty focus groups. Information from these
sources creates a broad perspective of the international student experience on campus. Findings
from the student perspective are first presented, followed by faculty views.
The student perspective. Interview data indicates that students recommend going
beyond the boundaries of their own cultures to make friends to improve their English skills and
adjust to campus life. As one student said, “It is important that you have some friends that you
don’t speak the same language with. When I first came here, I have a lot of Asian friends. . . .
That kind of forced me to always speak English.” Students suggested not clustering in their own
language groups and not joining the culture clubs of their own culture, although some felt that
this may cause isolation from their L1 (first language) peers. Others noted that associating with
their L1 peers was often unavoidable. Having a curiosity about cultures, attending campus activ-
ities, getting involved, and not worrying about English language mistakes were all cited as aids
to adjustment, particularly in social milieus.
Regarding academic support for improving English skills, some students interviewed had
negative views of the university’s ESL program. They felt course work was not beneficial
because it was repetitious and unrelated to their major, and that they could improve their English
in GE and major classes. A student shared her feelings: “I hated it [the ESL program] because
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 27

TABLE 4
Sources of Support for English Language Development: Student Views

Question n M SD

1. Watching American television has helped me improve my English. 316 5.87 1.017
2. Working on or off campus has helped me improve my English. 317 5.82 1.172
3. My ESL class experience has helped me improve my English. 254 5.78 1.166
4. My major classes have helped me improve my English. 248 5.74 1.017
5. Attending church services and church social activities has helped me improve my English. 317 5.74 1.059
6. My friends have helped me improve my English. 327 5.74 1.76
7. My ESL teachers have helped me improve my English. 254 5.68 1.154
8. My GE classes have helped me improve my English. 297 5.63 0.978
9. The freshman writing program has helped me improve my English. 267 5.62 1.042
10. My major teachers have helped me improve my English. 246 5.59 1.087
11. Living in the dorms has helped me improve my English. 291 5.31 1.172

Note. ESL = English as a Second Language; GE = general education.

like, all the things that I’ve seen, I have seen before. I did back home. . . . I was so frustrated
because I just want to finish my course [major].”
Those with more positive views expressed appreciation for learning essay writing skills and
improving their listening and speaking abilities because they did not receive much exposure to
spoken English in their homelands. “If I wasn’t in [ESL], if I just took GE classes or my major
classes, it supposed to be so hard for me. [ESL] classes helped me a lot.” Others felt that the pro-
gram helped their overall adjustment. “No matter how good you are at English. . . . It [the ESL
program] really prepares you a lot, other than language. . . . You can adjust yourself to the envi-
ronment, to the campus.”
Table 4 indicates the types of support NNES found helpful in developing their English skills.
The 7-point scale was as follows: 1 (not applicable), 2 (disagree strongly), 3 (disagree), 4
(somewhat disagree), 5 (somewhat agree), 6 (agree), and 7 (agree strongly). The data shows
that, according to students, their English language development benefited from both formal aca-
demic sources such as courses and teachers to employment and informal social activities includ-
ing television and friends. The mean for the responses shows little variation.
In addition, in response to an open-ended question on the alumni survey asking what helped
NNES improve their English skills the most, students responded with employment, associating
with NES, the ESL program, personal study habits, and support services. Overwhelmingly, the
responses indicated that the ESL program was a significant factor in helping students improve
their English, somewhat in contrast to the interview data that reflected both positive and nega-
tive views. The largest number of positive comments focused on the benefit of ESL courses and
teachers as indicated by the following quote: “The [ESL] program helped me building up strong
foundation of English skills. Without this program, I would find myself very hard to study both
major and GE classes.”
The faculty perspective. The faculty survey demonstrated that professors alter their peda-
gogical methods to support NNES. The survey also asked faculty to identify the types of support
they provide for NNES. Responses are indicated in Table 5. The 6-point scale was as follows: 1
(never), 2 (seldom), 3 (sometimes), 4 (most of the time), 5 (always), and 6 (not applicable). The
28 ANDRADE

TABLE 5
Addressing the English Proficiency Needs of Non-Native English Speakers (NNES): Faculty Strategies

Question n M SD

1. I use a variety of methods to explain concepts that might be difficult for ESL 87 3.87 1.15
students to understand due to vocabulary and language challenges.
2. I use the following teaching strategies to help ESL students further develop their
English language skills in my classroom:
(a) I try to point out ESL students’ English problems as much as possible when 87 3.45 1.33
grading assignments.
(b) I require students to use support centers such as the Reading/Writing Center, 87 3.3 1.59
Language Center, or Speech Lab when I detect deficiencies in their work.
(c) When I assign students to work in groups, I make sure students who speak the 87 3.02 1.49
same language are not in the same group.
(d) I give assignments to students with the specific purpose of helping them improve 87 3.0 1.65
their English skills.
3. I use the following teaching strategies to enhance ESL students’ learning and
mastery of my content area:
(a) I use visual aids. 87 3.92 1.17
(b) I talk slowly or use simple words. 87 3.46 1.02
(c) I try to find out which of my students are NNES so that I can address their needs. 87 3.36 1.65
(d) I have students work with a study partner or in study groups. 87 3.3 1.32
4. I demonstrate awareness of my ESL students’ linguistic needs in the following ways:
(a) I consider my ESL students’ language abilities when determining course 87 2.63 1.47
requirements such as writing assignments and/or presentations.
(b) I consider my ESL students’ language abilities while selecting course textbooks 87 2.53 1.58
and reading materials.
(c) I assign easier readings when there are many ESL students in my class. 87 1.78 1.09

Note. ESL = English as a Second Language.

data supports the views in Table 2 that faculty adjust delivery but not rigor. Responses to Ques-
tions 1 through 3 indicate that faculty either “sometimes” or “most of the time” use teaching
strategies likely to make course content more accessible for NNES or assist them in getting indi-
vidual help when needed. Only “seldom” or “sometimes” do they select easier readings and
materials or adjust course assignments to accommodate NNES’ English skills (Question 4).
Similarly, in the faculty focus groups, some professors stated that PowerPoint® slides, chap-
ter summaries, explanations of terminology, handouts, and the chalk board are helpful aids for
NNES. They also sometimes extend the time for exams, allow revisions of papers, and provide
opportunities for make-up exams when NNES do poorly.

Intercultural Learning

The last research question focuses on intercultural learning. Given that the university has created
an international environment to encourage appreciation for diversity, assessing success in this
area is critical. Information from student interviews, the language usage survey, the alumni sur-
vey, and NSSE data inform the third research question.
The students interviewed felt that the international environment of the university helped them
understand different cultures. It was also a critical factor in improving their English because
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 29

TABLE 6
Student Engagement With Diversity

Question n M SD

1. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have 916 3.36 1.03
you had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own?
2. To what extent does you institution emphasize encouraging contact among students from 916 3.16 0.92
different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds?
3. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills,
and personal development in the area of understanding people of other racial and ethnic 916 3.46 0.69
backgrounds?

they had to communicate with others in English, as was established earlier and is evident in this
statement: “I guess my curiosity to learn about other cultures help me improve my English
‘cause I had to use my English in communicating with them [students from other cultures].”
Students indicated that part of the experience of being at the university was diversity and felt it
was extremely important to associate with their peers from other cultures. “It is good to have
your friends from home, but also I suggest them to associate with those people who are from dif-
ferent countries because that’s probably why we come here for. We try to understand different
cultures.”
The language use survey data in Table 1 also supports the idea that students are generally
comfortable interacting with NES and other NNES and agree that developing close friendships
with members of both groups is easy, although the interviews indicated that NNES were hesitant
to interact with NES due to perceived weaknesses in English. The alumni data further supports
the idea that NNES had positive experiences with cultural diversity. Alumni rated the influence
of GE courses on their ability to associate meaningfully with people from other cultures. The
mean response for NNES was 5.27 (SD = 0.10), with a 5 indicating “very good” and 6 “excel-
lent,” the highest ranking. A second question asked alumni how helpful their experiences with
cultural diversity at the university were in preparation for employment. The mean for NNES on
this question was 4.31 (SD = 0.05), with a 4 indicating “quite a bit” and a 5 “a lot.”
The final measure of intercultural growth is the NSSE. Three questions on the NSSE are
related to students’ experiences with diversity. The 4-point scale for the questions in Table 6
was as follows: 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (very often). The means support the
idea that NNES are frequently engaged with peers from diverse backgrounds.

DISCUSSION

Related to the first research question, the effects of proficiency on adjustment, the data demon-
strate that, although both students and faculty recognize challenges associated with English
language proficiency, neither perceives these challenges to present major difficulties. Students
admit to having difficulties with English even as seniors, but are pleased with their proficiency,
comfortable interacting in English, feel their English has improved, and are close to obtaining a
degree. Faculty members are satisfied with students’ English skills, although they recognize
further improvement is possible. The findings support the literature related to the English
30 ANDRADE

language challenges experienced by NNES such as reluctance to participate, lack of confidence in

English skills, encountering unfamiliar vocabulary, and difficulty with written communication;
however, overall, English proficiency weaknesses do not appear to negatively affect teaching
and learning.
Regarding the identification of useful types of support for English language development, the
second research question, students have varied opinions about ESL courses (although most are
positive) largely because studying their major is their primary goal. They also feel English can
be improved in a variety of ways: informally through associations with others and formally
through their academic studies; however, for them, English is the means to an end—obtaining a
degree—rather than something to be pursued for its own value. They are satisfied with their
progress, and faculty members are generally satisfied with students’ proficiency; therefore, not
much incentive exists for improvement. Students’ motivation for learning English is largely
instrumental rather than integrative (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). This makes sense because they
intend to return home and may not foresee extensive use of English skills in their futures. In
hindsight, the alumni overwhelmingly appreciated the ESL program.
Professors appear sensitive to NNES’ needs and adjust their pedagogy accordingly by using
visual aids, talking slowly, simplifying vocabulary, and explaining concepts a variety of ways.
They do not report adjusting course content, making the content easier, or covering less mate-
rial, although the focus group data indicates faculty may be unaware they are doing this or reluc-
tant to acknowledge lessening the rigor of their courses. (No rationale appears to exist for the latter,
however, as individual faculty responses could not be identified in the survey, and the purpose
of the survey was to identify professors’ perceptions of English language issues in the classroom).
Overall, professors report that most NNES perform well academically and they feel they use
equitable grading standards for NNES and NES. They do not generally seek ways to help students
improve their English.
Findings related to the third research question, the relation between proficiency and intercul-
tural learning, indicate that the multicultural environment of the campus is beneficial to students
and that they recognize the importance of associating outside their linguistic and cultural groups
for purposes of English language development and intercultural growth. The importance of
interaction with competent speakers for language acquisition purposes (Krashen, 1985; Long,
1996; Swain, 1995) was something students were aware of. However, students may feel they get
more comprehensible input (e.g., see Krashen, 1985) from other NNES than from NES, and also
feel less intimidated by the NNES. Lowered anxiety and stress are important affective factors
for language acquisition (e.g., see Richard-Amato, 2003).
The interview data differed somewhat from the survey data related to this question, with the
survey indicating equal comfort interacting with NES and other NNES and the interviews
suggesting greater comfort with NNES. The interview data represents the experiences of the
participants—a relatively small number—and, as with all qualitative data, may not be generaliz-
able. However, the interview data supported the idea that intercultural interaction was a mean-
ingful part of the campus experience. Likewise, the survey data supported that students had
close friends beyond their own linguistic groups.
Students reported having frequent interactions with diverse peers, being comfortable in these
interactions, and increasing their cultural understanding. Although no formal measures of inter-
cultural learning or growth were administered, students appeared to have moved beyond cultural
disequilibrium and demonstrated positive behavioral learning strategies, particularly associating
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 31

with hosts (Taylor, 1994), which has been demonstrated to lessen culture shock and contribute
to overall adjustment (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). However, the multicultural environment
also poses a problem because students may stay within the bounds of their own cultures, thereby
failing to learn appropriate sociocultural rules for successful interaction.
Despite the positive findings, evidence suggests that NNES’ English skills could be stronger
and that more could be done to encourage and support intercultural interaction. Students feel
their English skills need only be strong enough to get by, and faculty appear to be accepting of
students’ current proficiency levels. The facts that students are instrumentally oriented toward
English language development, faculty feel students’ skills are adequate, and English weak-
nesses do not affect course grades suggest that if increased English skills are deemed important
to the student experience at this institution, this needs to be communicated clearly and strategies
identified for providing the needed motivation and support. Measurements of students’ actual
English language skills are also important to broaden self-reported information.
Some evidence exists that the critical mass of international students at this university was a
potential hindrance to English language development and intercultural understanding, as
students were able to stay in their own linguistic and cultural groups if they chose to do so.
Although critical mass may contribute to academic and social involvement and a sense of
belonging for minority and other diverse students in the United States (e.g., see Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Seidman, 2005), the studies cited earlier argue that, in the case of international
students, too many ties with co-cultural students can have a negative effect on cultural adjust-
ment (e.g., see Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998, Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). In contrast, a limited
availability of co-cultural students can enhance cross-cultural interaction, and strong English
skills can promote friendships with domestic students (Ying, 2002).
The students acknowledged the wisdom of moving outside their own cultural and linguistic
groups to improve their English and expand their intercultural experiences, yet they expressed
some difficulty in doing so. Intercultural learning appeared to be largely incidental and perhaps
attributable to the small campus and classes. Formalized intercultural education programs would
help students (international and domestic) gain greater benefit from the diverse environment.

Application to Other Institutions

Although the findings represent the experiences of international students and faculty at a
single institution, and one that has some unique features, the results indicate that these stu-
dents face comparable academic and social challenges to those at other institutions. Simi-
larly, the students’ instrumental motivation for learning English to get their degree is not
unlike that of international students, in general, not only in the United States but in other
English-speaking countries (e.g., see Li & Stodolska, 2006; Wu et al., 2001). International
students are often satisfied with their levels of English upon arrival, not wanting to improve
their English skills if it means increased time and expense to degree completion by taking
English language courses (Coleman, 1997), yet weak English skills can impact social and
academic success.
One of the most significant contributions of this study to higher education is the insights
it provides related to faculty perceptions of teaching international students. Few studies
have explored this area, although effective pedagogy is central to the success, not only of
international students but other diverse students. The increased mobility of international
32 ANDRADE

students and active recruitment of this group by Western nations has made them more
visible, but not necessarily resulted in increased exploration of how to serve them
(Scheyvens, Wild, & Overton, 2003).
With growing diversity in institutions of higher education in the United States and globally,
more studies are needed to determine how campus climates can support intercultural interaction
and learning and, in English-based institutions, the role of English proficiency on NNES’
academic and social adjustment. Institution-specific studies, such as the one reported here,
broaden the general knowledge base and provide further insights into issues of language acquisi-
tion and cultural adaptation with implications for teaching and learning.

REFERENCES

Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on international student adjustment. Journal
of College Student Development, 39, 539–547.
Al-Sharideh, K. A., & Goe, W. R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university: An examination of factors influ-
encing the personal adjustment of international students. Research in Higher Education, 39, 699–725.
Anderson, L. E. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 18, 293–328.
Beasley, C. J., & Pearson, C. A. L. (1999). Facilitating the learning of transitional students: Strategies for success for all
students. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 303–321.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of
intercultural communication. Selected readings (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, MI: Intercultural Press.
Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2001). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties by undergraduate and gradu-
ate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 25–40.
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2007). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of
International Education.
Blakely, R. (1995). The English fellows program. College ESL, 5(2), 1–20.
Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate
students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 167–184.
Cheng, L., Myles, J., & Curtis, A. (2004). Targeting language support for non-native English-speaking graduate students
at a Canadian university. TESL Canada Journal, 21(2), 50–71.
Coleman, S. (1997). International students in the classroom: A resource and an opportunity. International Education, 26,
52–61.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2006, March 23). Graduate applications from international students increase signifi-
cantly but numbers remain below 2003 levels. Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://www.cgsnet.org/
?mid=440&newsid440=16&tabid=57
Eggington, W. G. (2003). Toward a language plan for BYU Hawaii. Laie, HI: Brigham Young University.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock. New York: Methuen.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Addison–Wesley/
Longman.
Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Van Horn, R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among
domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23, 458–474.
Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication: Ethnic Chinese students in a
New Zealand university. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 294–307.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino
college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324–345.
Institute of International Education. (2007, November). Open doors 2007 fast facts. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=69692
 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND UNIVERSITY LIFE 33

Jacob, E. J., & Greggo, J. W. (2001). Using counselor training and collaborative programming strategies in working
with international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 73–88.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Kuh, G. (2004). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric
properties. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from http://nsse.iub.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_
Conceptual_Framework.pdf
Lee, D. S. (1997). What teachers can do to relieve problems identified by international students. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 70, 93–100.
Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ perspectives on cross-cultural adaptation. International
Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19, 167–185.
Li, M. Z., & Stodolska, M. (2006). Transnationalism, leisure, and Chinese graduate students in the United States.
Leisure Science, 28, 39–55.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lo Bianco, J. (2003). Common themes. In J. Lo Bianco & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching invisible culture: Classroom
practice and theory (pp. 7–9). Melbourne: Language Australia.
Lo Bianco, J. (2004). Resources for cultural language learning. Melbourne: CAE Press.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia
(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mendelsohn, D. (2002). The lecture buddy project: An experiment in EAP listening comprehension. TESL Canada
Journal, 20(1), 64–73.
Messner, P. E., & Liu, N. (1995). The Test of English as a Foreign Language: Examination of the “cut-off scores” in US
universities. The International Journal of Educational Management, 9(2), 39–42.
NAFSA [Association of International Educators]. (2003, January). In America’s interest: Welcoming international
students. Report of the strategic task force on international student access. Retrieved July 27, 2004, from http://
www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/stf/stf.htm
Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use of nonnative-English-speaking students in an MBA program: Not
business as usual! The Modern Language Journal, 88, 374–389.
Rajapaksa, S., & Dundes, L. (2002). It’s a long way home: International student adjustment to living in the United
States. College Student Retention, 4(1), 15–28.
Ramburuth, P. (2001). Language diversity and the first-year experience: Implications for academic achievement and
language skills acquisition. Journal of the First-Year Experience, 13(2), 75–93.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (2003). Making it happen: From interactive to participatory language teaching (3rd ed.). New
York: Pearson ESL.
Scheyvens, R., Wild, K., & Overton, J. (2003). International students pursuing postgraduate study in geography: Imped-
iments to their learning experiences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27, 309–323.
Schutz, A., & Richards, M. (2003). International students’ experience of graduate study in Canada. Journal of the
International Society for Teacher Education, 7, 10–26.
Seidman, A. (2005). Minority student retention: Resources for practitioners. New Directions for Institutional Research,
125, 7–24.
Shigaki, I. S., & Smith, S. A. (1997). A cultural sharing model: American buddies for international students. Interna-
tional Education, 27, 5–21.
Snow, M. A., & Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1997). Teaching academic literacy skills: A new twist on the adjunct model. Jour-
nal of Intensive English Studies, 11, 93–108.
Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students’ academic achievement. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 24, 56–68.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles
and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44,
154–174.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
Trice, A. G. (2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 7, 379–403.
34 ANDRADE

Wu, S., Griffiths, S., Wisker, G., Waller, S., & Illes, K. (2001). The learning experience of postgraduate students:
Matching methods to aims. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38, 292–308.
Ying, Y.-W. (2002). Formation of cross-cultural relationships of Taiwanese international students in the United States.
Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 45–55.