THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE:

AN EXPLORATION OF THE PARADOX OF INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATES.

by

Monica Parikh

W
April 21, 2008

IE
EV
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of
the State University of New York at Buffalo
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
PR

degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Higher Education Administration, Educational Leadership and Policy

 UMI Number: 3307680

W
IE
EV
PR

UMI Microform 3307680

Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 Dedication

This dissertation and doctoral degree are gratefully dedicated my parents,

Dr. Rajeev Parikh and Dr. Carol McMahon Parikh. I aspire to be the best of both of them.

To Dr. D. Bruce Johnstone. Had he not hit me with a rolled up newspaper

on my first day of my first class of my masters, I would not be where I am today.

W
To my Dissertation Committee Chairman, Higher Education Administration Chairman, and

Educational Leadership and Policy Department Chairman, Dr. Bill Barba.

IE
To my Chairwoman, Dr. Marcy Roe-Clark, who taught me, challenged me, and supported me far
EV
longer than she had to.
PR

To Dr. Greg Dimitriadis. Though I’ve never had the privilege of a seat in his class, his

mentorship guides me inside and outside the university. He made it hard to leave Buffalo.

And to the five international students I interviewed – I admire you.

On life's vast ocean diversely we sail,

Reason the card, but passion is the gale.

Alexander Pope, Essay on Man

ii
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 2

Problem Statement and Research Questions 11

Definition of Terms 23

Chapter 2 Literature Review 26

Review of Research on Student Engagement 26

Review of Research on Academic Performance 34

Review of Research on International Students 43

W
Review of Research on Instrumentation 49

Chapter 3 Methodology 60

Participants
IE 62

Data Collection Procedures 63

EV
Instrumentation: College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) 65

Interview 71
PR

Chapter 4 Presentation of Findings 75

Grade Point Average of Participants 80

Sources of Funding for Study Participants 84

Work Involvement for Study Participants 86

Trends in Academic Majors 92

Quality of Effort Scales’ Scores 98

Library Experiences 101

Computer and Information Technology Experiences 103

Experiences with Faculty 106

iii
 Science and Quantitative Experiences 110

Art, Music, and Theatre Experiences 112

Experiences with Campus Facilities 114

Clubs and Organizations Experiences Scale 119

Correlations of Quality of Effort Scales 124

Quality of Effort Scales’ Scores Compared to National Normative Means 125

Chapter 5 Discussions and Conclusions 128

Engagement Behaviors that Correlate to GPA 130

W
Differences between International and Domestic Student Engagement 136

What International Students Use, Most and Least Often 144

IE
Patterns of International Students’ Engagement Behavior 151

What is Not Provided that International Students Perceive as Beneficial?

EV
(Problems Revealed, Recommendations for Practice) 160

Additional Trends: Asian International Students 166

PR

Limitations of the Study 168

Suggestions for Future Research 171

References 174

Appendix A: Form and Letter to International Student and Scholar Services 181

Appendix B: Letter to Prospective Participants (Emailed to all with survey) 182

Appendix C: Consent Form (Given to each interview participant) 183

Appendix D: Interview Questions 184

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 International Student Enrollment 8

Table 1.2 International Students by Region of Origin 9

Table 1.3 Institutions with Highest Numbers of International Students 10

Table 1.4 International Students’ Field of Study 10

Table 4.1 Racial/Ethnic Identification of Survey Respondents 77

Table 4.2 Grade Point Average of Survey Respondents 80

Table 4.3 Grades of Domestic and International Respondents 81

W
Table 4.4 Correlations between GPA and Quality of Effort Scales, and Significance 83

Table 4.5 How Expenses are Met, International, Domestic and National Norm 85
IE
Table 4.6 Hours Working On Campus for Pay, International 87

Table 4.7 Cross-tabulation: How International Students Perceive their Job Affects School
EV
Work by Number of Hours Worked per Week 91

Table 4.8 Means on Quality of Effort Scales, International and Domestic 99

PR

Table 4.9 Use of Library and Resources Means, International, Domestic, and Norm 102

Table 4.10 Use of Computer and Information Technology, International 105

Table 4.11 Use of Computer and IT Means, International, Domestic, and Norm 106

Table 4.12 Experiences with Faculty Item Means, International 108

Table 4.13 Quality of Effort Scale Means, International, and Percent Mean of Scale

Maximum 123

Table 4.14 Correlations between Quality of Effort Scales 125

Table 4.15 Means of Quality of Effort Scales, National Norm and UB International

Students, and the Difference between the Two 127

v
Table 5.1 Grades and Hours on Out of Class Academic Work, International 134

Table 5.2 Quality of Effort Scales, International and National Means 137

Table 5.3 Standardized Means for Quality of Effort Scales, Domestic, International,

and National 138

Table 5.4 Levels of Engagement in Art, Music, and Theatre 141

Table 5.5 Levels of Engagement in Clubs and Organizations 141

Table 5.6 Contribution to Class Discussions: International Students by Class 162

W
IE
EV
PR

vi
 List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Frequency of Survey Participants’ Academic Majors 79

Figure 4.2 Grade Distribution, International and National Norm 82

Figure 4.3 Hours Working for Pay, Domestic, International, and National 87

Figure 4.4 Hours Working on Campus, International and National Norm 88

Figure 4.5 Sources Funding “More than Half” to “All” Tuition and Expenses, International

and Norm 90

Figure 4.6 Academic Majors, Percentage of International and National Norm 93

W
Figure 4.7 Sources of Funding, International at UB 96

Figure 4.8 Sources of Funding, National Norm 97

IE
Figure 4.9 Quality of Effort Scale: Library, International and National Norm 101

Figure 4.10 Quality of Effort Scale: Computer and Information Technology, International and
EV
National Norm 104

Figure 4.11 Quality of Effort Scale: Experiences with Faculty, International and National
PR

Norm 107

Figure 4.12 Quality of Effort Scale: Science and Quantitative Experiences, International and

National Norm 111

Figure 4.13 Quality of Effort Scale: Art, Music, Theatre, International and National

Norm 113

Figure 4.14 Quality of Effort Scale: Campus Facilities, International and National

Norm 115

Figure 4.15 Quality of Effort Scale: Clubs and Organizations, International and National

Norm 120

vii
Figure 4.16 Scale Means, International and National Norm 126

Figure 5.1 Grade Distribution, International, and National Norm 129

Figure 5.2 Hours on Academic Work Outside of Class 133

Figure 5.3 Hours Spend on Out of Class Academic Work, International 134

Figure 5.4 Mean GPA and Hours on Academic Work, International 135

Figure 5.5 Standardized Means for Quality of Effort Scales, International and National

Norm 139

Figure 5.6 Means on Scales Positively Correlated with GPA over Time 145

W
Figure 5.7 Means on Scales Negatively Correlated with GPA over Time 146

Figure 5.8 Discussed Academic Program with Faculty, International and Normative

Percentages
IE 152

Figure 5.9 Contributed to Class Discussions, International and Normative Percentages 153
EV
Figure 5.10 Standardized Means on Scales, in Increasing Order of Correlation

with GPA 159

PR

viii
 Abstract

Research in higher education suggests a direct relationship between student engagement and academic

performance. International students at research extensive University at Buffalo have a higher mean

GPA than the national norm while conspicuously less involvement on campus. This mixed-method

study investigated the possible paradox; it is an exploration of international student behavior with an eye

to their possible disengagement.

The main research question asked, What is the relationship between engagement and academic

W
performance, as measure by GPA? Approximately 300 international students were given the College

Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) and asked their GPA. The CSEQ provided data on
IE
students’ engagement behaviors and analysis was run to determine which types of engagement impact

grades. International student responses were compared to the national norm. Five follow-up interviews
EV
were conducted to explore themes the quantitative data revealed.
PR

International students were found to be more engaged in activities that are positively correlated to GPA,

including library and computer use, reading unassigned material, hours on academic work, use of the

scientific method, and experimentation. Their means are lower on personal and social engagement

(including acquainting with peers, asking friends for help, and talking to counselor or staff), which are

negatively related to GPA.

ix
The Relationship between Student Engagement and Academic Performance:

An Exploration of the Paradox of International Undergraduates

W
IE
EV
PR

1
 The Relationship between Student Engagement and Academic Performance:

An Exploration of the Paradox of International Undergraduates

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Background of Study

Assessment, International Students, and Student Engagement

Today’s increased call for accountability in higher education mandates a serious inquiry

into the determinants of successful outcomes for college students. Extensive research has

established that student involvement has a positive impact on graduation rates, satisfaction with

W
college experience, and academic performance. Research has not explored the relationship

between involvement and grade point average (GPA), a widely used measure of academic
IE
performance. The present research fills the void by comparing students’ GPA with measured

“engagement” - a broader term used here to encompass student involvement; quality of effort
EV
put into involvement; use of services; and other in- and out-of-class experiences.

Existing impact research has been conducted primarily on America’s domestic college
PR

students. Most are based on the experiences of white students (Kuh, 1992; Pace, 1990; Pascarella

& Terenzini, 1991; Watson & Kuh, 1997). There is a dearth of literature testing the impact of

international student involvement. Since international student graduation rates and academic

performance are overall quite good, there is perhaps little impetus to research their needs and

experiences. This, however, leaves a sizable percentage of undergraduate students understudied.

In their review of the past thirty years of research on college impact, Pascarella and Terenzini

(2005) call for increased consideration of today’s diverse student body.

The increased heterogeneity of American undergraduates, particularly in race or

ethnicity, spurred – indeed required – closer attention to what we have called conditional

2
 effects, or the possibility that any given college experience may have a different effect on

different kinds of students” ( p. 626).

The students to whom they refer include the international undergraduate population. Watson and

Kuh (1997) call scholars to turn attention toward relationships between ethnic composition,

student involvement, and educational gains.

This study focuses on currently enrolled international students - their campus

engagement, including effort put into being involved and use of academic and student support

services. It investigates patterns of behavior, as well as the connection between engagement and

W
academic performance. Both domestic and international undergraduates are surveyed to allow

comparisons. The objective is to identify patterns of behavior that contribute to academic

IE
success. It is hoped that the findings of this research may help serve the international student

population more effectively.

EV
Assessing College Student Outcomes

The international student enrollment in American colleges and universities reached an

PR

all-time high of 586,323 in 2003, comprising over 4% of total enrollment (Institute of

International Education, www.IIE.org). To serve new demographic and special-need groups,

universities have responded by enhancing student services, bolstering programs, and preparing

campus personnel to gain competencies to support international education initiatives. There has

been an emphasis on training faculty, staff, and students and a responsibility to provide resources

to support personal and academic success (Arthur, 2004).

Expending resources to implement an assessment system should follow. Several

definitions of assessment are in use. As Ewell (2002) writes, one is the evaluation of students’

outcomes after participation in a specific program (p. 9), including a course, a remedial program,

3
or an entire degree. to assess the utility of these resource-intensive services and the benefits

students derive from investing in involvement. To execute such tests, an outcome must be

selected. One such measure is Grade Point Average (GPA). GPA is the outcome under

examination here. Outcomes found can be used to set benchmarks for student performance and

for institutional planning.

Finding the variables that impact student performance is critical today as colleges and

universities invest millions in programs to improve learning. There exists a vast body of

research assessing the impact of certain variables on college students’ outcomes (Astin, 1977,

W
1993; Bowen, 1977; Boyer, 1987; Chickering, 1969; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Kuh, 1993;

Pace, 1979, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Thomas & Chickering, 1984). To some
IE
constituents, including students, parents, employers, and scholarship-granting committees,

academic performance is of paramount importance. In the case of international students, where a

EV
family’s life savings may be invested in tuition, high grades are a salient aim. Past research

made academic performance its primary outcome and little else was investigated. Today,
PR

researchers such as Astin, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Tinto (studies will follow) are increasingly

acknowledging the value of the college experience itself, assigning significance to less tangible

outcomes. These include satisfaction, improved confidence, cultural awareness, openness to

diversity, and other non-cognitive and psychosocial outcomes. The present research identifies

academic performance as its outcome. Simultaneously it explores international students’

experiences with an eye to the problems of possible lack of student engagement.

Student Engagement

“Student engagement” is a term used by the researcher to group variables proven to

impact numerous student outcomes. Engagement encompasses involvement, quality of effort

4
students put into that involvement, use of services and activities, and other in- and out-of-class

experiences. Scholars (Astin, 1977; Bowen, 1977; Boyer, 1987; Chickering, 1969; Feldman &

Newcomb, 1969; Kuh, 1993; Pace, 1979, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Thomas &

Chickering, 1984) have linked many of the benefits of attending college with engagement inside

and outside the classroom. Educationally effective colleges are those that channel students’

energies toward appropriate activities and engage them at high levels in those activities (NSSE,

2000). Research has assessed engagement’s impact on satisfaction, retention, degree

completion, self-concept, intellectual development, and more, as discussed in depth in the

W
literature review in Chapter 2. Despite extensive research, sufficient attention to international

students is evidently missing.

IE
Because of the valuable influence of out-of-class experiences on outcomes, institutions

can embrace the belief that out-of-class experiences are essential rather than in competition with
EV
or tangential to attainment of institutional and individual students’ goals. Institutions seeking to

enhance learning productivity could encourage students to take advantage of existing educational
PR

opportunities, many of which are outside the classroom. Those opportunities or services offered

can be routinely evaluated for utility and effectiveness, to justify the resources they require.

Also, institutions can learn from students what needs to be implemented. Kuh (1995) insists that

the key to enhancing learning outside the classroom lies in an institutional ethos that values and

encourages student participation and learning in all aspects of institutional life. In his expert

opinion: “policies and practices should be designed to encourage students… to interact

frequently with members of different groups in various settings and apply knowledge gained in

the classroom to other areas” (p. 150). The emphasis here is on the need for student engagement

to maximize learning.

5
 A study by Zhao, Kuh, and Carini (2005) reveals “previously unknown aspects of the

undergraduate experience of international students, including their engagement in activities that

contribute to high levels of learning and personal development” (p. 216). The relationship

between engagement variables and the vitally important GPA has yet to be thoroughly assessed.

The present study’s independent variable is student engagement. The term is used here to

describe student involvement, use of services, and quality of effort students put forth to engage

with their campus. This research assesses engagement’s relationship to GPA for domestic and

international undergraduate students.

W
International Students

International enrollment is known to benefit the university and its community. Lu (2001)
IE
maintains that greater numbers of students from abroad globalize the university, internationalize

and diversify the campus, and bring needed revenue. International students brought thirteen
EV
billion dollars to the United States economy in 2003 in money spent on tuition and other

expenses, and over four billion on living expenses alone (Open Doors 2004; McCormack, 2005).
PR

In addition to economic benefit, international students bring cultural enhancement to campuses

and communities. They also facilitate networks of worldwide contact, the resources to

internationalize institutions and their curricula, business connections, exchanges, international

relations, and powerful ambassadorships for both colleges and nations (Francis, 1993).

Besides generating revenue, the typically high standardized test scores and GPA of

international students improve student profiles at many colleges. Better student profiles result in

higher place in college rankings (like US News and World Report’s Best Colleges), which in

turn, brings institutions popularity and prestige, increased applications, and larger enrollment.

6
 In academic year 2004-05, American colleges and universities enrolled a 565,093

member international student body, composed of 65,667 at the associate’s degree level, 173,545

at the bachelor’s degree level, and 264,410 at the graduate level. Almost 47% of international

enrollees are graduate students; 42% are undergraduates. The United States saw its historical

first decline of international student enrollment with students entering in 2003, as found by the

Institute of International Education Open Doors Report, supported by the State Department of

Educational and Cultural Affairs. This surprising decline led researchers to investigate

enrollment numbers. The following four tables present numerical information on international

W
students in the United States’ higher education system. They are presented to depict enrollment

from other nations, to demonstrate the scope of this sizable and diverse group.
IE
To illustrate enrollment proper, Table 1.1 (constructed from 2005 Open Door Report

data) charts the historic increase in international student enrollment in the United States, every
EV
ten years since the late 1950s to the new millennium, and each year after that. There was

consistent increase in international enrollment from 1959 to 2002. Enrollment of students from
PR

outside the United States reached an all-time high in the academic year 2002-2003 with over

586,000 attending. Between the 1950s and 2003, the number of international students was

increasing even when total US higher education enrollment declined. One can see a slight

decline in 2003-04 - the first such decline. It was due, in part, to increased national security and

legislation restricting international enrollment. Of the 980 American institutions surveyed,

McCormack (2005) reports that most are citing delays and denials in the visa application process

as the top factor contributing to the decline. Institutions list high tuition and fees next, and

thirdly the vigorous recruitment by other English-speaking nations, especially Australia, as

responsible for the decline.

7
Table 1.1
International Student Enrollment

Year Number, International Students Total Enrollment Percent, International Students

1959-60 48,486 3,402,300 1.4
1969-70 134,959 7,978,400 1.7
1979-80 286,343 11,707,000 2.4
1989-90 386,851 13,824,592 2.8
1999-00 514,723 13,584,998 3.8
2000-01 547,867 14,046,659 3.9
2001-02 582,996 13,511,149 4.3
2002-03 586,323 12,853,627 4.6
2003-04 572,509 13,383,553 4.3
2004-05 565,039 13,994,869 4.0

W
Over one-half of these students come to the United States from Asian nations, while less
IE
than one-twentieth hail from neighboring Canada. Table 1.2 (International Students by Region),

shows international student enrollment percentages by region of origin. It shows an increase by

EV
over a quarter-million between 1980 and 2000. One can see that students coming to American

universities from Asian nations have remained the highest since 1980 (Open Doors Report,
PR

2002). Since 1990, Asian students have consistently comprised over 50% of all international

students. In 2004, India sent the most students to the United States, providing us over 14% of

our foreign students enrolled. Numerically, 80,466 students were enrolled from India and 62,523

from China, comprising the two largest groups. Both have increased since 2003. South Korea

and Japan enrolled the third and fourth largest numbers of students in American universities in

2004, making Asian countries the top four nations of origin (Open Doors Report, 2005). The

number of students hailing from the Middle East declined dramatically over the past twenty-five

years. The percentage of African students has also decreased. European student enrollment has

had a slow but steady increase. Canadian enrollment has increased, but the percentage of the

international student body remains constant.

8
 Table 1.2
International Students by Region of Origin

International Students by Region 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000

number percent number percent number percent
Africa 38,180 12.2 23,800 5.8 34,217 6.2
Asia 96,640 30.3 229,830 56.4 302,058 55.1
Europe 25,330 8.1 49,640 12.2 80,584 14.7
Latin America (including Mexico) 49,810 16.0 47,580 11.7 63,634 11.6
Middle East 84,710 27.2 33,420 8.2 36,858 6.7
North America (Canada) 14,790 4.7 18,950 4.6 25,888 4.7
Total International Students 311,880 407,530 547,876

International students tend to enroll at many major American research universities in or

W
near sizable metropolitan areas. The eleven institutions enrolling the largest numbers of

international students are listed in Table 1.3, from 2005 Open Door Report and 2005-06
IE
Almanac of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Two universities are in New York City, one in
EV
Boston, and one in Los Angeles. The University of Southern California has the highest

enrollment, followed by the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) and the University of

Texas (Austin). Of the twelve with highest enrollment, three are in New York State and two are
PR

in Southern California. The concentration of international students mirrors the citizen population

concentration in these two areas. Located in Upstate New York, the University at Buffalo (UB)

enrolls the 11th largest number of international students. UB is the site for this study. UB and

the majority of these institutions are large, prominent, reputable, major research universities, as

defined by the Carnegie Commission.

9
Table 1.3
Institutions with Highest Numbers of International Students

Institution Enrolling Highest Numbers of International Enrolled State Located

International Students 2005-06
1. University of Southern California 6846 California
2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 5560 Illinois
3. University of Texas at Austin 5333 Texas
4. Columbia University 5278 New York
5. New York University 5140 New York
6. Purdue University 4921 Indiana
7. University of Michigan 4632 Michigan
8. Boston University 4541 Massachusetts
9. University of California at Los Angeles 4217 California
10. Ohio State University 4140 Ohio
11. University at Buffalo 3965 New York
12. University of Wisconsin at Madison 3941 Wisconsin

W
Despite their diverse backgrounds international students tend to concentrate in certain
IE
majors. Table 1.4 shows the three fields of study which enroll the largest numbers. Business

and management are grouped as the major of highest frequency at 19.1% in the academic year
EV
2003-2004. Engineering enrolls a close second at 16.6%, and math and computer sciences,

grouped together, is third with 11.8%. These three majors return potentially high salaries,

compensating for tuition and other expenses incurred when studying abroad. They may also
PR

enhance employment opportunities in the global marketplace. Of the 572,509 international

students enrolled two fall semesters ago, almost 48 percent (272,106) declared a major in one of

these three groups.

Table 1.4
International Students’ Field of Study

Field of Study, 2003-04 Number Enrolled International Percent of Total

Business and Management 109,187 19.1
Engineering 95,183 16.6
Mathematics/Computer Science 67,736 11.8
* Total international students enrolled was 572,509 in academic year 2003-04.

10
 The four tables above offer an overview of international student enrollment. Competition

to enroll future international applicants has increased worldwide. English speaking nations in

particular, like Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and other members of the European Union,

have launched efforts to increase international enrollment (McCormack, 2005). These efforts

include increased advertising, exchange programs with American universities, language courses

for the admitted, and specific majors and program offerings to entice students from abroad. This

study explores the experiences of currently enrolled international students - their campus

engagement, including the effort they put into being involved, and their use of services.

W
Problem Statement and Research Questions

Statement of Problem
IE
With the pressure on today’s universities to compete for faculty, resources and

enrollment, institutions are expected to pledge excellent service to all student groups. As the
EV
already immense international enrollment continues to grow, sufficient service becomes

challenging. They are an understudied population (Lu, 2001; Tinnesz, 2001; Garrod & Davis,
PR

1999) about which administrators often know little. Dalton (1999) asserts: “The presence of so

many international students on campus and their importance to institutional enrollment and

development strategies make it important for student affairs leaders to be knowledgeable about

these students as well as about the international issues and circumstances that affect them” (p. 6).

Moreover, international students are more likely to experience more problems that students in

general and have access to fewer resources to help them (Pederson, p. 24). As the proportion of

international students increases, they perceive their campus to be less, not more, supportive

(Zhao, et al, p. 224). Two issues arise from this. First, international students may find it more

11
difficult to succeed without needed social engagement and academic support. Second, colleges

and universities may fail to serve this student group effectively.

In 1999, Dalton called on colleges’ divisions of student affairs to examine their

responsibility to international students and what it entails. He stressed “the increasing

importance of international exchange and experience in the work of student affairs professionals”

observing that only peripheral attention has been given to international student needs in the past

(p. 3). He wanted student personnel administrators to see that better serving international

students would benefit students and the profession.

W
By 2005, campuses had become far more committed to organizing activities and

promoting services for students from other nations; however, some international students in the
IE
United States reported displeasure and isolation. Garrod and Davis’s Crossing Customs (1999)

is a collection of writings from international students at Dartmouth University. The book

EV
expresses international students’ perceptions of American college life and culture. These essays

were overwhelmingly critical and dissatisfied. Their titles included “Unsung Songs,” “Little
PR

Voice,” and “Battles Within” echoing their isolation and distress. Some wrote Americans were

merely apathetic about meeting international students; others described terrible treatment by

classmates and roommates for being different. Many depicted American peers as void of serious

commitment to studies, performing unapologetically poorly. Domestic students accused

international students of “blowing the curve,” blaming international students’ academic success

for injuring the weighted averages.

Though its contributing authors are a small sample of international students, Crossing

Customs substantiates frequent claims that international students are alienated, remaining

socially marginalized and disconnected from their college. “While American students can

12
usefully absorb some cultural relativism as they compare home with school, these international

students must bridge significant gaps in values, beliefs, and practices in ways that call for

complex skills of adaptation and flexibility” (ibid, p. xii). The authors present these painful

narratives as evidence of disengagement of international students depicting their problematic

disconnection and isolation plaguing our campuses.

Campuses are often caught between two different approaches to serving students. One is

actively to care for and promote student development while the other is a more laissez-faire

approach emphasizing student independence and autonomy (Dalton, 1999, p. 5). Thus

W
institutions are caught between cultivating students’ development by drawing them into activities

and experiences, or allowing students to independently pursue their own involvement. The
IE
tension between these two approaches can lead student affairs offices to develop dual missions –

one that focuses on undergraduate support and guidance and another tailored to needs and
EV
interests of graduate students. Neither is focused on the international student population, or its

inherent diversity.
PR

Out of concern for international student welfare, Zhao, Kuh, and Carini (2005) examined

international student engagement. They used an instrument called The College Student Report

(CSR) which measures areas of student experience in a manner similar to the instrument used in

the current research (College Student Engagement Questionnaire, or CSEQ, discussed later).

The CSR, also designed by Kuh, takes the majority of its items from the CSEQ. Using the CSR,

Zhao, Kuh, and Carini surveyed 175,000 students at over 300 institutions and compared

international with domestic student data. International students report some degree of culture

shock upon arrival and that shock is typically manifested as stress, anxiety, and feelings of

powerlessness, rejection, and isolation (p. 210). These feelings can escalate over time;

13
international students are more likely to report loneliness and isolation, which can escalate into

severe depression. The authors explain that international students who integrate and establish

strong social support systems tend to adjust more quickly and effectively.

However, culture shock, isolation, and depression can bar participation in potentially

beneficial activities that impact learning and personal development. One common coping

mechanism is exclusive focus on academic achievement (Zhao et al., p. 211). Historically, low

international student enrollment may have contributed to social isolation and overcompensation

on academics (p. 225). No one has tested whether this differs as enrollments increase. Zhao,

W
Kuh, and Carini go on to recommend: “Institutions with large numbers of international students

should systematically assess the experiences of various sub-groups, such as Asian students, to be
IE
sure they are investing the appropriate amount of time and energy in educationally purposeful

activities” (p. 226).

EV
This research explores international students’ experiences with an eye to the problems of

their possible disconnection. A major public university with a large international undergraduate
PR

student body was selected as an ideal site. State University of New York at Buffalo, commonly

known as the University at Buffalo or UB enrolls 18,000 undergraduate students, 1,108 of whom

are from other nations. UB offers a plethora of services to meet ever-increasing student needs.

Informal observation of UB international students suggests under-attendance of events

and underutilization of services. Few appear to participate either in or out of the classroom (this

needs explanation). Existing theory holds that better-integrated students prosper. Better

involvement results in better retention and graduation rates and higher levels of satisfaction

(Astin, 1977; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Kuh, 1995; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto,

1993). If international students are less-integrated, they should be poorly retained; hold low

14