LITERATURE REVIEW Current study will exploring the relationship between cultural adjustment and student engagement among female Saudi international students; after observing a noticeable increase in the number of Saudi women who are studying in USA. Particularly it is focus on how Saudi women navigate the transition from “the most gender-segregated environment in the world” (Alhazmi & Nyland, 2010, p. 2) to a mixgender enviroment. Discussions of these female Saudi students absent in the literature until the past few years (Alhazmi & Nyland, 2010; Al-Sheikhly, 2012). I devided literarture review in a four sections. First section will discuss, the King Abdullah scholarship program. Second, section I will elborate previous studies which will discuss the frame an understanding of international students’ challenges of studying abroad., , Third section, will illustrate Saudi female experiences in American Higher Education. Fourth section, Factors influence on Student Engagement in higher education. First, King Abdullah scholarship program Saudi Arabia has been sponsoring Saudi international students since its foundation in 1932, initially with the purpose of sending students to pursue Arab and Islamic studies in countries such as Egypt and the Lebanon (Taylor &Albasri, 2014). In 1960s, Saudi Arabia expanded opportunities for Saudi international students to study abroad to include countries in Europe and the United States, and by 1975 there were thousands of Saudi international students studying abroad (Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to USA, 2012). The current opportunities for Saudi international students to study abroad go back to 2005 when the, King Abdullah Abdulaziz launch the King Abdullah Scholarship Program (KASP). 1 By 2012, the number of Saudi international students studying abroad had reached nearly 150,000. More than half of those sponsored by KASP are studying in the United States (Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to USA, 2012). According to the Ministry of Economy and Planning in Saudi Arabia in 2011, the percentage of Saudi students funded by the government to study abroad is approximately 85%, of which around one-fifth are females with most interest respectively in study in the USA (Smith &Abouammoh, 2013). The benefits of scholarships, specifically the KASP, are not only limited to obtaining knowledge , but to exceed this target in order to give students the opportunity to live in a modern environment, with all the conveniences of a developed nation. The intended outcome is for students’ to build capacity while abroad and return home with new knowledge and understanding, but interpreted through a uniquely Saudi Arabian cultural lens, to contribute to the ongoing modernization of SA. Consequently, this study attempts to illustrate light on such issues by investigating how Saudi international female students experience in terms of cultural adjustment and their engagement in the university environment. Third, adjustment difficulties of Saudi international female students in USA Saudi cultural traditions mandate gender segregation in both public and private life (Alhazmi & Nyland, 2010). Even as public pressure and government policy changes made women’s education an espoused priority for the Kingdom, women’s freedoms were gained only to the limit and isolated from men (Baki, 2004. For example, although women’s career and educational opportunities widened throughout the past four decades, the expansion happened within gender-segregated facilities and predominantly within gender-segregated fields of study (Royal Embassy). The gender separation was so complete that even the administration of 2 women’s education differed from that of men’s until the early 21st century, falling under the Department of Religious Guidance rather than the Ministry of Education until 2002 (Hamdan, 2005). This helped ensure that women’s education “did not deviate from the original purpose of female education, which was to make women good wives and mothers” (Hamdan, 2005, p. 44). In Saudi Arabia, a lack of qualified teachers, textbooks, and transportation for women enrolled in institutions of higher education still exists (Al-Mouhandis, 1986; Hashimilion, 2011). Saudi female students encounter once they first go to study in the American is the classroom environment. The interactions can be challenging in the beginning, particularly when negotiating mixed-gender classrooms with different expectations of the student-teacher interaction (Alhazmi & Nyland, 2013). The study by Alhazmi and Nyland (2013) focuses on Saudi students experiences under the KASP emphasizing the mixed-gendered environments in Western countries. The researchers of this study highlight the transition Saudi students go through in their cultural identity discussing it from two views: their experiences and the impact of this environment on them. According to Alhazmi and Nyland “social context of gender segregation and the cultural and historical aspects of the practice contribute to forming the cultural identity of a Saudi citizen as a member of the larger community.” (p. 354). In their findings, participants’ identities were impacted by moving to a mixed-gender society. Some of them feel pressure at the beginning to represent their culture in an appropriate way, while achieving their educational goal of being abroad acquiring a level of engagement with the new culture (Alhazmi & Nyland, 2013). Another challenge was being conscious and aware of not making mistakes in dealing with the opposite gender. However, this tension takes place within the first few months and then students are able to develop a better understanding and reflect on both societies. This, in fact, plays a significant role in altering the perspective of viewing the 3 opposite gender in their home country and the host culture. Some of participants in Alhazmi and Nyland study noted that being in a mixed-gender environment enhances a “greater confidence and independence” as well (p.360). Second, International students challenges in terms of cultural adjustment To better understand the adjustment process of international students, it is important to understand the unique problems faced by them. They experience problems such as “academic challenges, and the stressors associated with transition to a new school or university” (Furnham & Bochner 2001, p.153). International students faced problems like Psychological, Financial difficulties, Academic issues. Psychological issues. Entering into a brand new environment, it is natural that international students suffer psychological issues. The environment produces a general sense of homesickness,loneliness, alienation, depression, and the loss of identity, etc. (Harper & Quaye, 2009; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Tseng & Newton, 2002). Students have to apply internal and external effort to promote this development, which has been called the psychological transition. Tseng and Newton (2002) found factors influencing the process and length of this transition, including English proficiency, previous experiences in cultural adaptation, reliable supportive system, and self-efficacy. In accordance with Tseng and Newton (2002), Mori (2000), Yi, Lin, and Kishimoto (2003) discovered a positive relationship between previous achievement in the home country and performance in suffering psychological issues in the U.S.—in other words, high prior achievement prone to high adaptation. These findings should be taken into the decision-making process for designing engagement programs. Psychological issues are only one part of international student life and are often inevitable, no matter how prepared they are. Depression is often accompanied with hopelessness 4 and helplessness for international students (Olivas & Li, 2006), because of their high expectation of their American education experience, disappointment with the U.S. reality, failure in adjustment (Jung, Hecht, & Wadsworth, 2007). Additionally, cultural differences are an obvious reason for psychological issues. Chapdelaine and Alexitch (2004) found that with the cultural gap between the students’ home country and American culture, communication was hindered between international students and domestic students. There is no doubt that psychological issues also trigger students to feel physically uncomfortable, causing symptoms like insomnia, dreaminess, and anorexia (Tartar & Horenczyk, 2000), which also make it difficult for international students to engage with U.S. life. Financial difficulties. Studies have shown that in most universities in the U.S., international students pay an average of three times what their American students pay in tuition and fees (Awosanya, 2017). Awosanya (2017) also claimed that there is a little, or no financial assistance rendered to international students. United States federal student aid programs are not available to those who are not U.S. citizens as they are to U.S. students. Moreover, the American economy thrives better than most countries where these international students come from and as such, the exchange rate is also very high (Winthrop Corporation, 2017). The high exchange rates between the international students home country and the U.S is unfavorable on the part of the international students and this could lead to financial distress as explained in a study by Geo (2008).The compulsory international student’s health insurance fee also adds more to the financial burden that international students already have as explained by an international student from some students who never went to the hospital throughout their stay (Sherry, Thomas, & Win, 2010). The study by Morgan similarly demonstrated the financial struggles that some international students as reported in the case of Yves, a Rwandan genocide survivor (Morgan, 5 2006). Academic issues. Literature has shown that most international students enter U.S. higher educationwithout sufficient knowledge of the American education system, including the education culture, instructional style, academic resources and expectations (Bevis & Lucas, 2007).International students come to study in America, but are faced with academic challenges. How the academic adjustment takes place depends on the education program, education expectation,English proficiency, etc. The flexible and free characteristics of U.S. education ease the pressurecoming from academic study. International students pay more time and energy to academic learning and place their studies in a more important position than social activities (Gebhard, 2012). Students who have more honors and achievements in their home countries tend to have comparable ambition in their American studies, not just for themselves but also for their families(Mori, 2000). In order to have academic success, international students behave with highermotivation and self-discipline than their counterparts (Liao, Ferdenzi, & Edlin, 2012). Theyutilize their academic achievement to build and raise their confidence (Tseng & Newton, 2002). It is safe to say this reaction to academic issues is important in building student success. Researchers have exposed problems, such as assignments not satisfying the task description caused by the misunderstanding in the educational culture and academic expectations (Tatar, 2005). Moreover, faculty members usually instruct based on American culture and style, and, for international students who have limited relevant experiences, the learning process could require extra effort to achieve the learning goal (Tatar, 2005). This phenomenon is rather common for Asian students, because of their experience with Asian education which stresses serious and uninterrupted instructional style, learning skills focusing on listening, not a creative assignment (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). 6 Scholars have also found some interesting results in library usage. Wang and Frank (2002) found the fact that many international students do not obtain sufficient information and knowledge regarding how to use library resources, including books, magazines, journals, library websites, and librarian services, which may lead to not performing research. It is important to acknowledge the effort that librarians spend on helping international students master the library services, which is similar to the study conducted by Curry and Copeman (2005). But there is one thing for sure: international students must spend lots of time and energy to overcome difficulties needed for academic success. The first priority is to foster English language proficiency. Not being able to cope with the language issues may leave international students in circumstances where they lack correct and effective communication, endure educational frustration, and limit academic performance (Wang & Frank, 2002). English language Barriers. In the U.S., international students must exhibit English as a survival skill. The proficiency of the English language is a key factor in predicting academic achievement and level of engagement (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Poyrazli and Grahame (2007) studied a larger student population, including graduate and undergraduate students coming from Germany, Korea, India, China, Turkey, and Mexico. Researchers discovered that inadequate English competency creates fear to speak English in public, causing students not to participate in discussions in the classroom, anxiety toward making mistakes leading to others’ ridicule, and frustration and disappointment for receiving low participating scores (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Language barrier is a formidable element leading to social isolation on campus and in social contexts. Previous studies have shown the promising outcome that through cross-racial interaction, language skills are significantly improved for international students speaking English 7 as their second language (Kuh, 2008; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Ultimately, it is helpful for international students to build friendships with domestic students.Knowing how important the problem could be, many practices have been established with the purpose of improving international students’ English skills. Niranji et al. (2014) conducted a quantitative research study that indicated that these courses foster academic achievement, adjustment, and cross-racial interaction. Fourth, Factors influence on Student Engagement Kuh et al. (2005a) stated that student engagement is not new to higher education and identified two key components. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies as well as other activities that lead to the experiences and outcomes which constitute student success. The second is the way an institution organizes services, learning opportunities, and allocates resources which encourage students to participate in such services. Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2007), stated, in general, the more students engage in “educationally purposeful activities” the more they learn and the more likely they are to persist and graduate from college. In areas such as critical thinking, it is the breadth of student involvement in the intellectual and social experiences of college that matters most to student development and student success. Student Engagement may affected by two Factors which promote student engagement. educational context, teacher instruction and personal characteristics (Carter, 2002; Holloway, 2004). In this study, educational context refers to how students psychologically feel safe to learn in the university environment. Personal characteristics refers students personal character. 8 Teacher instruction refers to student-faculty interaction. Educational Context Student engagement is affected by teachers and parents and shaped by school policy and practice (Willims, 2003; Wang & Holcombe, 2010) more universities emphasize the prominence of research, the less time and effort that professors appear to be investing in teaching undergraduates and student engagement in those universities may be affected. Lutz and Culver (2010) found that different educational contexts may result in different levels of student engagement. In addition, students are more engaged in schools where the teaching environment is strongly infused with a strong disciplinary climate, positive student-teacher relations, and high expectations for student success (Blankstein,2007). Universities which received funding in teaching quality may have features that enhance student engagement compared to universities that received funding for research quality or those that failed to receive funding in these two areas. Kuh et al. (2006) place teaching and teachers at the heart of engagement. The next section examines the literature on the effect of student-faculty interaction on student engagement. Personal Characteristics The personal characteristics in the research study were (a) age group, (b) gender status, and (c) number of hours worked per week. Leppel (2012) reported that these characteristics have been found in previous research studies to be closely related to student engagement. Age Group. Hutchinson (2008) found in a study examining persistence of first-time students, that students over the age of 20 displayed noticeably lower levels of engagement. In addition, older transfer students (with a mean age of 29)were more likely to persist to degree completion than were younger students who were less engaged. 9 research studies have shown age group to be a characteristic that has been demonstrated to have an influence on student engagement. Therefore, age group was examined in this research study Gender. Using a national sample of undergraduates(NSSE), Leppel (2002) and Hutchinson (2009) reported that factors influencing persistence may be different for males and females. Findings from their studies on persistence indicated that observed persistence rates for women were higher than that of men; however, the difference was not statistically significant. In another study, DuBrock and Fenske (2000) showed gender to have an impact on retention.According to NCES (2005), younger generations of females (aged 39 or younger) have essentially attained parity or surpassed males in attainment ofassociate’s, bachelor’s and graduate degrees. Across the adult population ages 25 or older, similar percentages of males and females had bachelor’s degrees in 2012. In a review of Achieving the Dream Data Notes (2008), it was found that males neither persist nor attain credentials at thesame rate as females. Finally, research studies have shown gender to be a characteristic that has been demonstrated to have an influence on attainment. Therefore, gender was examined in this research study Number of Hours Worked per Week. According to Chaves (2010), an increasing number of community college students must work full-time or only attend class part-time. Thus, finding the opportunity to connect and become involved in the university environment is an ongoing challenge for these students. This discussion prompted institutional researchers to explore how external commitments, like employment, impact a student’s ability to academically and socially integrate into the college community. Furthermore, Kuh (2008) indicated that external commitments are important based on their prior research pointing to the role of finances in the departure puzzle. Finally, research studies shown Number of Hours Worked per Week to be a 10 characteristic that has been demonstrated to have an influence on student angagement. Therefore, Number of Hours Worked per Week will examined in this research study Student-faculty interaction “Student-faculty interaction not only helps undergraduates think about and solve practical problems, but also guides students’ models for life-long learning” (Kuh et al., 2005) Studentfaculty interactions may derive from curricular-related questions or non curricular related conversations. Martin et al. (1999) study concluded that college students wanted to relate to their instructors to increase their understanding of class materials, and utilize what is learned in the class. Student-faculty interactions can take place in class and out of class. Student-faculty interaction in class refers to student participation in classroom discussions, asking questions in class or discussing curricula-related materials with professors. Discussing grades, receiving oral or writing feedback from instructors, planning and discussing future career plans with instructors are also considered as student-faculty interactions though such conversation is not curricularrelated. Student-faculty interactions inside classroom may vary by class size, for large classes tend to have less student-faculty interaction compared to small ones. Student-faculty interaction outside the classroom is not limited to office hours, hallway conversations or e-mail communication is included (Huijuan, 2018). Contacting professors or teaching assistants via email or participating in research projects or academic clubs with faculty members are recognized as part of out-of-class student-faculty interactions. Pascarella and Terenzini (2009) found that students who engage in out-of-class conversations develop academically and cognitively. Deci et al. (2016) suggest that student-faculty interaction is important in enhancing student engagement. Mearns et al. (2017) found that students are 11 committed to work harder if they perceive teachers to be approachable, well prepared, and sensitive to students’ needs. Students’ needs related to undergraduates’ perceptions of their own competence, values, goals, and social connectedness with faculty members, peers, and staffs. Coming into a new environment, students face a lot of stress and worries, which may also affect their health. Altbach (1991) further pointed out that worries for their health by foreign students is an underlying problem. In summary, studies of international students show that, in general, daily difficulties stem from language deficiency, lack of money, lack of a social network to maintain surroundings. Chapter Summary To create an inclusive campus, the first step would be understand and utilize acculturation to involve students from all races (Altbach, Gumport, & Berdahl, 2011; Astin, 1984; Cheng & Chun-Mei, 2006; Constantine et al., 2005; Reynolds & Constantine, 2007; Swail, 2003). For the staff serving international students, it is noticeable to make sure employees gain a comprehensive view towards the features of this population, which have been mentioned in the previous section on international students. Acculturation could function as an instrument to communicate and consider beliefs, attitudes, norms and customs in the multicultural campus (Jung, Hecht, & Wadsworth, 2007; Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung, 2008). When reviewing and considering the research findings concerning issues of student engagement, scholars have progressed in creating an inclusive campus to facilitate success for diverse student populations (Bryson, 2014; Kuh, 2008; Lazerson, 2010). In the literature, there is 12 consensus illustrating the internal relationship between college students’ personal and social growth, college experiences concerning the institutional services in academic and non-academic areas, and student identities (such as gender, mother language, home country, etc.) (Cuyjet, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2012; Kuh, 2009; Lazerson, 2010). Engagement is the expected outcome in the process of coping with all these issues. However, addressing the needs of international students could be challenging as administrators struggle to find the most appropriate approach and apply it effectively. Given these circumstances, educational institutions might want to ask themselves how they provide assistance and support to international students given they understand their own culture and climate while taking into account past decades of 58 research findings (Cheng & Zhao, 2006; Cuyjet, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2012). Answering this question requires effort from the entire personnel because the institutions must evaluate and refine their services in student affairs and academic affairs. It is a difficult problem for institutions to address but it is also an important issue if they want to maintain and possibly increase admissions of international students (Harper, 2007). Nonetheless, more research on the practices of designing international student engagement programs must be established to alter future activities for student engagement (Bean, 2005; Cheng & Zhao, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004; Swail, Redd, & Perna, 2003). Research involving the current multicultural campus and the diversity of student populations reveals that higher education has transferred its attention to be responsive and supportive in fostering student engagement to expedite retention and student development (Stearns, 2009). At present, stakeholders are bound together—the world has forced them to learn from previous research and practice, modify their facilities and services to engage various 13 students, and attract more outstanding students in the admissions process, no matter what identities the student has. In summary, literature has exposed two pressing requests: one for future research conducted in a more detailed manner (Gebhard, 2012; Hopkins & Luna, 2011; Inman, Ladany, Constantine, & Morano, 2001; Liu, 2002; Phillips, 2013), and the other for more large studies (Hu & Kuh, 2003; Mori, 2000; Olivas & Li, 2006; Watt, 2007; Yang, Wong, Hwang, & Heppner, 2002) in 14
Purchase answer to see full attachment