Abstract
This study examines undergraduate students’ college readiness and educational engagement gaps in a US public research university. The study reveals the heterogeneity of domestic (American) and international student groups. While typical international students may have disadvantages in college readiness and engagement, English speakers and American high schoolers among international students perform even better than domestic peers. In contrast, English learners and foreign high schoolers among domestic students, such as recent immigrants face the same challenges as typical international peers lacking adequate language and cultural preparation for college success. The study re-envisions educational diversity and equity for global campus where an integrated system of academic and sociocultural support enables transnational students to succeed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Murphy (2007) found that, on average, the SAT verbal test scores of immigrant college students are significantly lower than those of their native counterparts in American colleges based on the data of National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) and the 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). In contrast, the same data show that average SAT verbal test scores of international students compare much more favorably with those of American students, but their spoken English proficiency still tends to lag behind American counterparts.
References
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (2003). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal, and radical debate over schooling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2014). Making the LEAP and student success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Philadelphia.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the life course: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brown, C. S., Brown III, U. J., Beale, R. L., & Gould, J. K. (2014). Factors influencing academic success and self-esteem among diverse college students. International Journal of Education Research, 9(1), 1–14.
Butcher, A., & McGrath, T. (2004). International students in New Zealand: Needs and responses. International Education Journal, 5(4), 540–551.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the no child left behind act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cruickshank, K., Chen, H., & Warren, S. (2012). Increasing international and domestic student interaction through group work: A case study from the humanities. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 797–810.
Erisman, W., & Looney, S. (2007). Opening the door to the American dream: Increasing higher education access and success for immigrants. Washington D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Fox, C. (1996). Listening to the other: Mapping intercultural communication in postcolonial educational consultancies. In R. Paulston (Ed.), Social cartography: Mapping ways of seeing educational and social change (pp. 291–306). New York: Garland.
Grayson, J. P. (2008). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international students at four Canadian universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(3), 215–230.
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–174.
Hernandez, D., Denton, N., & Macartney, S. (2009). School-age children in immigrant families: Challenges and opportunities for America's schools. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 616–658.
Institute of International Education (2017). Open Doors Report. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data
Jones, E. (2017). Problematising and reimagining the notion of ‘international student experience’. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 933–943.
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Lindemann, S. (2015). Mitigating U.S. undergraduates’ attitudes toward international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.192.
Kim, N. (2016). Critical teacher talk: Successful English for academic purposes classroom practices in a global campus. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 967–983.
Kim, Y. K., Collins, C. S., Rennick, L. A., & Edens, D. (2017). College experiences and outcomes among international undergraduate students at research universities in the United States: A comparison to their domestic peers. Journal of International Students, 7(2), 395–420.
Kirst, M., & Venezia, A. (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72–85.
Kubota, R. (2001). Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 9–38.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who have access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Li, G., & Beckett, G. (2006). “Strangers” of the academy: Asian female scholars in higher education. Sterling: Stylus.
Lin, S., & Scherz, S. D. (2014). Challenges facing Asian international graduate students in the US: Pedagogical considerations in higher education. Journal of International Students, 4(1), 16–33.
Marginson, S. (2014). Student self-formation in international education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6–22.
Maringe, F., & Jenkins, J. (2015). Stigma, tensions, and apprehension: The academic writing experience of international students. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0049.
McLean, P., & Ransom, L. (2005). Building intercultural competencies: Implications for academic skills development. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students (pp. 45–62). London: Routledge.
Montgomery, C., & McDowell, L. (2009). Social networks and the international student experience: An international community of practice? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(4), 455–466.
Mow, S., & Nettles, M. (1990). Minority student access to, and persistence and performance in college: A review of the trends and research literature. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: A handbook of theory and research (Vol. 6, pp. 35–105). Agathon: New York.
Murphy, K. B. (2007). Identifying the different behaviors and needs of immigrant and language minority students at public four year higher education institutions. Metropolitan Universities, 18(1), 70–86.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2017). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Retrieved from https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/eag2017_eng.pdf.
Oseguera, L. (2005). Four and six-year baccalaureate degree completion by institutional characteristics and racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 71(1–2), 19–59.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research, 1(1):1–61.
Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 21, pp. 99–157). Memphis: Springer.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2014). Creating multicultural change on campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rizvi, R. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse, 30(3), 253–268.
Rumbaut, R. G. (2004). Ages, life stages, and generational cohorts: Decomposing the immigrant first and second generations in the United States. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1160–1205.
Russell, J., Rosenthal, D., & Thomson, G. (2010). The international student experience: Three styles of adaptation. Higher Education, 60(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9297-7.
Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). ‘Canaries in the coalmine’: International students in western universities. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students (pp. 45–62). London: Routledge.
Straker, J. (2016). International student participation in higher education: Changing the focus from ‘international students’ to ‘participation. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(4), 299–318.
Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2001). Predictors of student commitment at two-year and four-year institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond.
Summers, M., & Volet, S. (2008). Students’ attitudes to culturally mixed groups on international campuses: The impact of participation in diverse and non-diverse groups. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 357–370.
Telbis, N. K., Helgeson, L., & Kingsbury, C. (2014). International students’ confidence and academic success. Journal of International Students, 4(4), 330–341.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures and attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tran, L. T., & Vu, T. T. P. (2017). ‘Agency in mobility’: Towards a conceptualisation of international student agency in transnational mobility. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1293615.
Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2007). Competitive and cooperative impulses to internationalization: Reflecting on the interplay between management intentions and the experience of academics in a British university. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 1(1), 65–82.
Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 33–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix. Description of variables
Appendix. Description of variables
Background variables
Gender. This is a categorical variable (1 = female, 0 = male) that measures students’ gender.
Class level. This is a categorical variable (1 = first-year, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior) that measures students’ class level in college.
Parent education. This is a categorical variable that measures the highest level of education completed by student’s parents. The categories are 1 = less than a high school diploma; 2 = high school diploma or equivalent; 3 = college, vocational, or trade school (including a 2-year degree); 4 = graduated from a 4-year college (bachelor’s degree); and 5 = graduate or professional schooling.
Residence length. This is a continuous variable measuring how long the student has lived in the USA. The unit of the value is year.
Home language. This is a categorical variable indicating the student’s language(s) spoken at home most of the time. The responses had 15 categories: English, Chinese Mandarin, Chinese Cantonese, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Hindi, Vietnamese, Turkish, Bengali, Bangla, Nigeria, Arabic, Kiswahili, and more than one home language.
Major. This is a categorical variable which indicates intended major or academic area of study. The responses had 7 categories: 1 = Engineering, 2 = Science, 3 = Social Science, 4 = Art and Humanity, 9 = Double major, − 1 = Undecided, and − 2 = Not specific.
High school grade. This is a continuous variable indicating average high school grade (0–100% or F-A). The letters are recoded to corresponding percentages.
College readiness and engagement variables
Academic readiness. This is a continuous variable, the composite score of 16 specific types of academic competencies including critical thinking, problem solving, computing skills, note taking, presentation speech in class, test taking skills, reading comprehension, writing, and mastery in subject areas (math, US history, world history, literature, biology, chemistry, physics, and foreign language). The participants are asked to evaluate “How well prepared/ready were you in each of the academic competencies/abilities at the time of college entrance?” Responses were coded on a 5-point scale: 1 = none, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent. The overall reliability is 0.92.
Sociocultural readiness. This is a continuous variable, the composite score of 11 specific types of sociocultural competencies: collaboration/teamwork, commitment to learning, understanding of school/program/career paths, responsibility, academic integrity, communication, creativity, independence, help-seeking, balancing school and other demands, and multicultural competence. The participants are asked to evaluate “How well prepared/ready were you in each of the social and cultural competences/abilities at the time of college entrance?” Responses were coded on a 5-point scale: 1 = none, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent. The overall reliability is 0.93.
College education engagement. This is a continuous variable, the composite score of student engagement in 7 high-impact college education practices: Students ask questions in class; Students express opinions in class; Students cooperate on class activities; Students present assignments in class; Teachers give feedback other than test scores; Students have ownership/leadership of the class; Learning practical applications of knowledge is the focus of class. The participants are asked to report “How often do you experience the following practices or activities during your typical college classes?” Responses were coded on a 4-point scale of 1 = Hardly/Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Frequently, and 4 = Always. The reliability of this scale is 0.88.
High school education engagement. This is a continuous variable, the composite score of student engagement in 8 high-impact high school education practices: Students asked questions in class; Students expressed opinions in class; Students cooperated on class activities; Students presented assignments in class; Academic writing was common; Teachers gave feedback other than test scores; Learning conceptual knowledge/theory is the focus of class; Learning practical applications of knowledge is the focus of class. The participants are asked to report “How often did you experience the following practices or activities during your typical high school classes?” Responses were coded on a 4-point scale of 1 = Hardly/Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Frequently and 4 = Always. The reliability of this scale is 0.89.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, J., Kim, N. & Wu, Y. College readiness and engagement gaps between domestic and international students: re-envisioning educational diversity and equity for global campus. High Educ 77, 505–523 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0284-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0284-8