Top Banner
Culture Shock and Higher Education Performance: Implications for TeachingPhilip Kelly, John Moores University, Liverpool, [email protected], and Yvonne Moogan, Kaplan Business School, London, [email protected] Abstract The globalisation of higher education brings together learners and teachers from differing systems, creating a heterogeneous and diverse environment.Yet many higher education institutions typically rely on foreign students themselves to adapt to their new higher education environments.An investigation was under- taken as to whether traditional approaches are effective and efficient in meeting the needs of the internationally mobile student. Using data from the last ten years (1999 to 2009) from a post-1992 University in the North West of England an analysis of over 15,000 postgraduate assessments found a signifi- cant performance difference between home country students and international mobile students. Results found that home country students perform significantly better than international students, although the latter perform better in exami- nations than in coursework. However, there is a substantive improvement during the dissertation stage for both groups. Possible reasons for such varia- tions in performance are explored. Introduction There has been a substantial growth in the number of internationally mobile students (IMS) due to the internationalisation and globalisation of tertiary education. Many institutions, particularly those with business schools, have recruited increasingly large numbers of overseas students in their attempts to become more international. There were 417,000 inter- national students studying in the UK in 2008 alone (UKCISA). As Altbach (1991, p. 305) claimed, ‘foreign students are among the most important and visible elements of this internationalisation’.There are two key arguments for this: the first is financial and the second concerns Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00505.x Volume 66, No. 1, January 2012, pp 24–46 © 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4, 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
23
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Culture Shock

Culture Shock and HigherEducation Performance:Implications for Teachinghequ_505 24..46

Philip Kelly, John Moores University, Liverpool,[email protected], andYvonne Moogan, Kaplan Business School, London,[email protected]

Abstract

The globalisation of higher education brings together learners and teachers fromdiffering systems, creating a heterogeneous and diverse environment.Yet manyhigher education institutions typically rely on foreign students themselves toadapt to their new higher education environments.An investigation was under-taken as to whether traditional approaches are effective and efficient in meetingthe needs of the internationally mobile student. Using data from the last tenyears (1999 to 2009) from a post-1992 University in the North West ofEngland an analysis of over 15,000 postgraduate assessments found a signifi-cant performance difference between home country students and internationalmobile students. Results found that home country students perform significantlybetter than international students, although the latter perform better in exami-nations than in coursework. However, there is a substantive improvementduring the dissertation stage for both groups. Possible reasons for such varia-tions in performance are explored.

Introduction

There has been a substantial growth in the number of internationallymobile students (IMS) due to the internationalisation and globalisation oftertiary education. Many institutions, particularly those with businessschools, have recruited increasingly large numbers of overseas students intheir attempts to become more international.There were 417,000 inter-national students studying in the UK in 2008 alone (UKCISA). AsAltbach (1991, p. 305) claimed, ‘foreign students are among the mostimportant and visible elements of this internationalisation’.There are twokey arguments for this: the first is financial and the second concerns

Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00505.xVolume 66, No. 1, January 2012, pp 24–46

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4, 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Page 2: Culture Shock

providing students with a multicultural and global learning experience.Such internationalism is an inspiring experience for students and staff butit creates language and cultural problems that must be solved if they are togain the benefit of diversity (Fortuijn, 2002) for internationalism shouldnot simply be about increasing foreign student numbers (Deutschman,1991). Governments have been trying to increase diversity within highereducation for it is viewed as more ‘healthy’ learning leading to increasedstudent choice and participation (Teixeira and Amaral, 2001; Gurin et al.,2002; Steir, 2003; Huismann et al., 2007; Rose and Bylander, 2007; Ryanand Hellmundt, 2008) and with an emphasis on supporting and devel-oping lifelong learners (Antonio, 2001; Blackstone, 2001; Briguglio,2007; Dam-Mieras et al., 2008; Siegal, 2008). ‘By internationalising thecurriculum, universities have the potential to prepare students moreeffectively for a global culture’ (Tait, 2010, p. 262).

As global mobility increases, the diversity of learners (cultural back-ground, language, age, experience, country of domicile) presents chal-lenges to the learner, educator and higher education institution. Wherestudents have their own identities and languages, the lecturers faceadditional challenges in the classroom (Slee, 2010). Raising awarenesswith staff to address international issues can be demanding (Caruana andPloner, 2010). Such challenges are also exacerbated as resources in theUK higher education sector are limited and international students face atransition (process of changing from one state to another) between theirown culture and their new culture (Kelly, 2009).Traditional institutionsexpect the IMS to fit into their educational system but internationalstudents do find it difficult to adjust since they may be ignorant of theimplicit social rules that regulate interaction in the host country, leadingto ineffective interaction in the host country (Chapdelaine and Alexitch,2004). In addition international students often wish to widen theirexperience, yet they are seen as minority members who can be excludedbecause English may not be their first or second language (Allen andHiggins, 1994; De Vita, 2000; Ledwith and Seymour, 2001; Woodward-Kron, 2007; Tran, 2008) and language is the vehicle of culture (Hofstede,1986). For example, Brown (2010) found essay examination results to beaffected by language. Language and writing skills often have to be learntwhen international students are new to the UK and this can take time.

Research is limited with regards to the experience of foreignstudents in overseas universities, with little theoretical work evident oncross-cultural adult learning that can improve the success rates of under-represented student cohorts (Chavez, 2007) and in particular referenceto performance during the transition period. ‘Given that the primary

Culture Shock and HE Performance 25

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 3: Culture Shock

goal of most international students in studying abroad is to gain aqualification, there is remarkably little published research on academicoutcomes, such as pass or failure rates and the grades of the degreeobtained’ (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 327). Research is also lacking in thearea of student feedback and about feeling marginalised or disadvan-taged (Bruch et al., 2007) with just a little evidence about the experienceIMS have whilst studying in the UK (Jones, 2005). Finally, absent fromthe literature is information regarding the duration of the transitionalshock with its performance outcomes throughout this period and thetime it takes for overseas students to be relatively ‘comfortable’ withintheir new environment. Although Lin and Yi (1997) discusses Asianinternational students’ adaptation within the USA, referring to the pre-arrival adjustment stage, the initial adjustment stage, the on-goingadjustment stage and the return home, there is no data to confirm theseperiods of time, to support their duration or offer strategies for help.Hence this is where the ‘gap’ exists.

With internationalisation, the higher education institution has tochange at all levels and adapt accordingly (Hermans, 2005). Conse-quently, in the interests of equality and given the internationalisation ofthe curriculum, there is a duty to ascertain that course designs are notbiased towards any type of student but in particular that the IMS are notprejudiced. Although IMS are keen to study in the UK, programmesmust be fit for global purposes for whilst it would be relatively easy tosimply lower standards or change the way we teach and assess, we mustrecognise that students select the host country education system for whatit is.Thus, higher education institutions need to strike a balance betweenmaking degrees ‘British’ (national) and global so that output for the IMSis maximised and maintained. The programme of study must considersuch issues as how the curriculum is designed and how the assessmentstrategy is established so making it fair for all. For example, Johnston(2010) debates how centric assessment policy often acts as a disadvan-tage to the ethnic minority students and higher education institutionsshould promote cultural knowledge and context.This means that assess-ment criteria should be varied to reflect different student backgroundsand embrace such cultural diversity.

This paper will review the literature on globalisation with reference tothe transition period considering the challenges faced by the IMS andthe higher education institution. It will continue with a discussion of theeducational strategies (as proposed from the authors) for the multicul-tural classroom. Next the research methods are documented.The paperconcludes with an analysis of the results and based on these findings

26 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 4: Culture Shock

suggestions for course design are presented.This first paper, however, isa basis for future research as the authors plan to investigate some of thefindings here in more depth and the time periods concerned. Conse-quently, caution needs to be exercised with the results and supportingcomments.

The student transition period

When IMS visit a new country they must adapt to their new highereducation system.The transition period is a time when assumptions anddifferences (barriers) in the home education system are impacting uponthe education process. Students face the natural difficulties posed bya new environment causing a period of disorientation, insecurity andincomprehension that may last for weeks, months or even longer. Dif-ferences experienced by a ‘new’ student may result in ‘shock’ and thismay have many consequences for them. Oberg (1960, p. 177) firstcommented on this when defining culture shock as the anxiety resultingfrom the loss of familiar signs and symbols when a person enters a newculture, familiar cues disappear and ‘no matter how broad minded or fullof goodwill one may be, a series of props have been knocked from under’.Shocks may be experienced in relation to the national culture differenceand the differences between home and visited country educationsystems. Education system distance represents the gap between assump-tions within a host country education system (beliefs about what con-stitutes knowledge, how it should be learned, taught and assessed) andthose of the international mobile student’s home country.Thus, for someIMS, the difficulties may be less or greater. International students willarrive with various expectations (Harris, 1995; Hall et al., 2009).

Zakaria (2000) refers to frustration and confusion caused by uninter-pretable cues. However, IMS also face difficulties with the study skillsnecessary to complete a master’s programme such as the aptitude tocritique the literature, communicate interactively and the methodologi-cal skills of gathering assignment data. In addition IMS have a doublecultural clash as they are forced to fit in with the culture of the associatedclassroom as well as with the Western lifestyle (Bell, 2000). Tseng andNewton (2002) recognise four key adjustment issues for internationalmobile students; general living adjustment (accommodation issues andpayment of living expenses), academic adjustment (language problemsand ignorance of the education system), socio-cultural adjustment(experiencing culture shock, discrimination and conflict of home andhost standards) and personal psychological adjustment (homesickness,alienation and loss of identity; see also Bowl, 2001, p. 142). Olaniran

Culture Shock and HE Performance 27

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 5: Culture Shock

(1996) refers to language and age as the two social difficulties facingIMS, noting that the younger a student is, the easier it is to adapt. Thelanguage problem is of greater significance since support is not onlyneeded with how to speak English but has to include the support ofcritical writing, reflections upon learning and communicative interac-tions with academics and peers. Although IMS may be relatively ‘expe-rienced’, their learning culture is often different from that of the UK.According to Stiasny (2008) it is essential for academics to examine ourmethods of teaching with innovative pedagogies (and perhaps an inter-national pedagogy) that are relevant to the needs of home and interna-tional students, for the challenge is to explore whether IMS are beingincluded or excluded or discriminated against and disadvantaged.

There is often a disparity between international mobile students’learning expectations and those anticipated by the higher education staffdelivering those programmes with this being particularly so during thetransition period when everything is new to everyone.There will be gapsin understanding that may be due to the teachers’ perceptions of overseasstudents such as them being unable to participate in discussions andwanting to work with similar students from similar backgrounds (Ryan,2008) or it may be due to tutors not reflecting upon student activitieswithin an interactive learning environment so that a deep learning envi-ronment can be created (Gerstman and Rex, 2001). In addition interna-tional students may be associated with ‘surface’ learning techniques suchas rote learning and their inability to solve problems independently,feeling threatened by new learning environments, especially where thereare large volumes of research information and materials requiring analy-sis. Tait (2010, p. 264) defines surface learning as when; ‘students targetonly the essentials of a course and use rote memorisation to rememberfacts rather than understanding important concepts’. In addition IMS arefrequently guilty of unintentional plagiarism and the lecturer cannotassume that referencing skills have been developed previously (Barrettand Cox, 2005). IMS may not challenge the tutor but simply accept whatthey are told rather than question their knowledge as they are probably stilladapting. In contrast, home students, especially those with work experi-ence, tend to debate more with tutors, be more familiar with reflectivelearning and with working in teams. This gives cause for concernon postgraduate programmes for ‘only high quality, deep learningapproaches are likely to lead to high quality learning outcomes desired ofhigher education students’ (Cope and Staehr, 2005, p. 194), which are inturn influenced by the quality of teaching (Trigwell et al., 1999). Suchdeep approaches are associated with an intrinsic interest in what is being

28 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 6: Culture Shock

learned coming from a need to develop subject competence (Tait, 2010).Consequently the duration of the transition period is paramount for if thehigher education institution does not appreciate that a transition periodexists, IMS are disadvantaged before they even begin. IMS cannot learneffectively until the education systems are aligned so that acclimatisationcan occur and common ground established.

In recognition of education system distance and difference and theresultant shock to students, higher education institutions may chose andadopt different strategies for teaching IMS. Under the traditional highereducation institution approach, the student is viewed as the problem andmust adapt and take on board their new educational system meaningthat the institution does not change but continues as normal; it isassumed that the IMS will integrate effectively within their newenvironment. Research (Tomalin, 2007; Richardson, 2008) argues thathigher education institutions have a responsibility to bridge the financialand political decisions of widening participation and internationalisationwith adequate resources, whereby all ethnic groups receive guidance andsupport to have an equal chance of succeeding. Strategy two is thetraditional ‘awareness’ strategy whereby the higher education institutionis aware of student issues and tries to support IMS during the period ofadaptation. Under this strategy, the higher education institution remainsunchanged but gives more help to the IMS. The third strategy is that ofthe ‘innovative’ institution that questions its own assumptions and makeschanges to itself in order to close the gap or at least reduce the transitionperiod possibly developing an international (global) pedagogy. Forexample, learners have to be given greater support and ensure that thecurriculum with assessment is adapted accordingly such that a culturallyresponsive and not culturally indifferent curriculum is designed (Slee,2010). Finally, a fourth strategy may be described when the highereducation institution and the IMS adapt together with both perceiving a‘shared problem’.This may be described as the ‘collaborative’ approach.Here both parties modified their assumptions and behaviouraccordingly. For example, Broekmann and Pendlebury (2002) noted thatthe last twenty years of postgraduate study in South Africa have beendifficult, with academic development moving away from viewing stu-dents as the problem, to seeing the higher education institution as theissue and solving this problem through developing a good relationshipbetween the two.

A consequence of the first two strategies is academic disadvantage; theIMS must recognise and adapt to the host higher education institutionpedagogical style. IMS are therefore disadvantaged until they assimilate

Culture Shock and HE Performance 29

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 7: Culture Shock

sufficient understanding to adapt to their new higher education system.The disadvantage disappears when students become intellectually athome due to the mastering of the host higher education institution’simplicit, culture bound, ‘rules’. The contemporary literature does nothowever provide detailed knowledge about this disadvantage, since theconsequences for teaching, learning and assessment are unknown forIMS. In particular, there is no rich quantitative data about the magni-tude of any disadvantage. Consequently, strategy selection by highereducation institutions is not adequately informed through theory. Forexample, assessment issues need to focus on validity, feedback andfairness from informed policy rather than from conscientious individualacademics since assessment is frequently influenced by tradition andexternal constraints (Meyer et al., 2010). Key questions remain unan-swered such as the duration of the transition period and the associateddifficulties IMS may have in attaining programme learning outcomes.Toovercome this ‘ignorance’ we need to better understand the transitionperiod and its implications.

Empirical study

A key aim of this quantitative study is to improve our understanding ofthe IMS transition period and to explore possible causes of and practicalresponses to performance differentials relating to the IMS and homecountry students engaged in tertiary (postgraduate level studies). Thekey independent variables of this study include student diversity char-acteristics (international, age and gender) and aspects of the educationsystem (teaching and assessment methods) and the dependent variables(performance outcomes); intermediary variables include the durationand complexity of the transition period. Much of the data can, therefore,be collected from student record systems.

For this study, data was collected from the Oracle Student Systemdatabase of information that integrates admissions, enrolment, assess-ment, progression and awards data for all students. This was thenimported into a custom-built database used to manipulate and categoriseand then export data for analysis in SPSS.

Data comprised of 2,159 Master of Business Administration (MBA)students enrolled at Liverpool Business School and registered duringthe last ten years (from 1999 to 2009). The MBA comprises twoMBA programmes that share more than 60% commonality. There is anExecutive MBA that attracts predominantly part-time mature homecountry students and an International MBA that attracts predominantlyyoung students who are frequently international.This latter programme

30 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 8: Culture Shock

is run for full-time students only. The entry requirements for theExecutive MBA are different in that potential students need tohave a minimum of three years substantial managerial work experience,whereas with the International MBA although this is not required,general work experience is favourably considered. Despite differingstudent entry points, both programmes include at least two identicalmodules in the second semester (strategic management and researchmethods), which are assessed via the same examination and course workrespectively, with the option modules for the International MBA alsobeing core modules on the Executive MBA. In addition the dissertationmodule is identical on both programmes.

The dissertation takes place in the third semester and the pass markfor all modules is 40%.The size of the taught modules on the ExecutiveMBA are all 15 credits whereas the credit size of the taught modules onthe International MBA comprise a combination of 30 credit and 15credit sizes. On the International MBA 30 credit modules are deliveredin semester one whereas 15 credit modules are delivered in semester two.As some 15 credit modules (options) are the same on both programmesthey are delivered by the same staff. In total nearly 15,000 assessmentitems were completed by this sample and analysed by programme(Executive or International MBA).

The rationale for incorporating both programmes in the study was toincrease the sample size of the home country students, for these arepredominantly enrolled on the Executive MBA, whereas UK studentsenrolled on the International MBA are relatively small. Both pro-grammes have the same learning environment, similar or the samemodules with identical dissertation requirements, although the Execu-tive MBA students bring different skills to the classroom. Consequently,other situational variables, not investigated here, might account for thevariances in performance revealed. Ideally, a single multicultural cohortshould be used for this type of investigation. However, this would nothave provided sufficient data for meaningful analysis.

The assessment types include coursework or examination or hybrid.Furthermore, coursework may include group work or individual work,essay (written) or presentation (verbal). The sample comprised 78%international mobile students and 75% were males. When consideringassessment at the module level, the sample contained module marksfrom course work only strategies (n = 3,609), modules includingexamination (n = 2,560) and modules assessed through a hybrid ofwritten and oral work (n = 1,345). Although this quantitative research isrobust and substantial it is just a starting point to investigate student

Culture Shock and HE Performance 31

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 9: Culture Shock

performance differentials and further research particularly in a qualita-tive direction is needed.

Results

Evidence of academic disadvantage and transition shock may be evidentin the performance of students in their initial assessments. If assump-tions of a short transition period are correct it might be expected thatsome impact in the first semester with little or no thereafter. The meanpercentage assessment score during semester one for IMS (M = 45.1and SD = 12) was significantly less than the home country students(M = 55.1 and SD = 11.3) with semester two and three scores also beingsignificantly different at the P = 0.000 level although with a slightlysmaller differential. There are three interesting observations: first, theIMS do not improve from semester one to semester two (but neither dothe home country students); second, over the taught components of themaster’s degree, the IMS do not close the gap with the home countrystudents; and third, both home country students and IMS improve insemester three, where the IMS close the gap.The gap between semesterone and two should decrease if the IMS have adapted to the hosteducation system and one assumes that there is no assessor bias. Thismay suggest that the transition period continues beyond the end of thefirst semester and into the second semester (and longer) whilst the IMSare still adapting. The largest increase in mean scores (especially forIMS) occurred in semester three when the independent learning(dissertation) took place and the differential for IMS/ home countrystudents narrowed to less than seven points. This may be due to morefrequent and timely feedback whereby students use different skill sets inundertaking their own research and liaise with their supervisors inde-pendently throughout. However, the lack of improvement (between thefirst two semesters) is worrying for the educator as is the significantlylarge difference between IMS and home country students’ performance.

As could have been predicted, the IMS preferred examinations tocoursework during the taught component of the programme (althoughthere is a marked improvement for the dissertation) and the gap withthe home country students was much less for examination-basedassessments. The mean examination scores for IMS (M = 50.1 andSD = 12.1) were significantly lower from the home country students’scores (M = 54.4 and SD = 13.7) and two-tail test = -4.742 andP = 0.000, although the gap is less than with coursework means. Forexample, the mean coursework scores for IMS (M = 47.4 andSD = 14.8) was thirteen points lower than the home country students’

32 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 10: Culture Shock

scores (M = 60 and SD = 15.6). IMS seem to prefer examinationsrather than coursework (which may be due to their prior higher edu-cation background where rote learning is more common) as a means ofachieving a successful outcome.

There are many variables affecting diversity such as age and gender.For instance, investigating age and gender performance, the authorscreated a sample that placed students in four ‘age’ categories (Fig. 1).When splitting the whole group according to age, the largest differentialperformance was between those 22 years old or under (M = 45,SD = 11.4) and those over 30 years old (M = 53.6, SD = 11.4),

Figure 1 Age 1: students aged 22 years old or under. Age 4: students over 30years old.

Culture Shock and HE Performance 33

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 11: Culture Shock

t (711) = -9.863, P = 0.000 (two tailed). The semester two and threemean scores were also significantly different at the P = 0.000 level and inthe same direction. The mean age categories were significantly differentfor semester one, two and three scores, with a significant difference withregard to the semester two and three exit velocity, especially amongst themore mature students (category four). In summary, age impacts uponperformance with the results indicating performance improving as ageincreases.This is because international mobile student cohorts are oftenpopulated by younger and less mature students who may not be aswidely read or equipped with the higher education skills necessary espe-cially at the start of the programme.

Aside from age, a reflection of experience and maturity, the authorsinvestigated gender and performance. In semester one, females per-formed better (M = 50.6 and SD = 11.5) than males (M = 45.9 andSD = 12.4) and semester two and three (dissertation period) averageresults were also significantly better but males seemingly improve at agreater rate throughout the programme than females, with the gapclosing by semester three to a two-point differential.

Perhaps females are more apt at juggling several modules (particularlyduring the taught component of the programme) and can multi-taskmore effectively than males? Another explanation could be that malesprefer to concentrate on one piece of work in depth (such as the disser-tation), which is more relevant to them and become more tightly focusedon this type of independent study.

Of those international students (n = 95) with previous experienceof studying in the host higher education environment (M = 54.8,SD = 11.1), semester one scores were 8 points higher than for thosestudents new (n = 1843) to that system of higher education in the hostcountry (the UK in this case) (M = 46.5, SD = 12.3), which increased to12 points in semester two but decreased to less than a two-point differencein semester three (Fig. 2). The largest improvement in performance isfrom semester two to semester three for ‘new’ students and a slightimprovement from semester one to semester three for ‘previous’ studentsdespite the slight decline towards the end.The students who have previ-ously studied in the UK seem to gain advantage in semester two whichmay be due to settling in faster and or being better equipped to interpretcommunications from the tutor due to already knowing the ‘rules’.

Next, credit size (a reflection of contact hours and relationship time)and teaching style were considered, as they can impact upon the educa-tion and transition period. First, over five thousand student moduleassessments (individual and group course works, presentations and

34 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 12: Culture Shock

examinations) were analysed according to credit size. The 30-creditmodule sizes show less variance so highlighting there is less potential toscore very low or very high (extreme values) in comparison to 15-creditmodules (which had a higher standard deviation). The InternationalMBA, which tends to attract overseas students, contains two 30-creditmodules whereas the Executive MBA offers only 15-credit modules onits programme. Relationships with tutors and peers are more possibleduring larger module sizes for more teaching is involved with extratime for group activity, presentations and timely feedback. A 30-credit

Figure 2 ‘Previous’: international students with previous experience of studyingin the host Higher Education environment. ‘New’: students new to that systemof Higher Education in the host country (the UK in this case).

Culture Shock and HE Performance 35

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 13: Culture Shock

module facilitates continual communication where expectations can bereinforced and the student-tutor relationship enhanced over a longerperiod of contact class time.

Second, an investigation into the effect of teaching style in the beliefit would show a preference for a teacher-centric classroom was under-taken, for delivery of the module may be influential in affecting studentresults. With the director of the MBA programmes observing eachmodule tutor in the classroom, a selection of one from five differentteaching style codes, reflecting the degree of control given to studentsover teaching and learning was recorded (Code 2 indicates a teacher-centric classroom whilst Code 5 indicates a student-centric classroom).When analysing international student performance on coursework(7459 assessments analysed), it was found that students performedsignificantly better when educated in a student-centric environment(M = 51.32, SD = 14.65) rather than from a teacher-centric environ-ment (M = 48.54, SD = 14.31), t(7457) = -8.305, P = 0.000 (twotailed). The teaching style can determine the learning context since thekey issue is the way the student approaches their learning and smallclass sizes with a high number of tutor input hours may facilitate a moreproductive learning climate.

In summary, various factors such as student diversity characteristics(IMS, age, gender, education experience), the teaching context andperception of the assessment task will impact upon the student learningand performance. The performance difference in semester three closessuggesting that the transition period may span the taught component ofa Masters level programme (typically two semesters (one academicyear)). The existence of this transition period seems to be corroboratedby the performance of IMS who have previously studied in the hostcountry environment. There are powerful arguments in favour of differ-ing the approach to teaching and learning in the multicultural classroom.The findings are significant for the higher education institution and foran impetus for change. As Smith and Schonfeld (2000, p. 22) state; ‘theimperative of diversity amid changing demographics has the potential tochallenge some of the underlying assumptions of our higher educationinstitutions’. The next section will discuss such implications.

The transition period

There is often much criticism when ‘internationalisation’ of highereducation institutions is voiced, for overseas students are often weakerperformers or more demanding students but higher education institu-

36 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 14: Culture Shock

tions need to recognise their needs and help them in adapting to thehigher education system by managing such diversity (Dobbins, 2009;Shaw, 2009).

This study was undertaken to investigate the transition period forIMS, its consequences and impacts and was driven by questions abouttheir performance.

Despite traditional (costly) support mechanisms (induction, tutoravailability and welfare support), with additional weekend workshopsand longitudinal study skills sessions that were also introduced when theInternational MBA was created five years ago in 2004–2005, interna-tional mobile student performance was significantly poorer. However,this limited improvement in the host (UK) education system also needsto be analysed during the first five years of data (1999 to 2004–2005)prior to the validation of the new MBA International programme in2005. Consequently the further comparisons of these time periods areneeded to investigate any possible improvements in the pre and postperiods of the MBA International. One of the most likely explanationsfor this minimal improvement focuses on the duration of the transitionperiod but it also includes other IMS attributes such as gender and age.For example, the ‘typical’ young, male-dominated international studentis, just like his home country student counterpart, more likely tounderperform. This may be due to the experiences of a different educa-tion system. Thus often, when comparing international with homecountry cohorts the research is not comparing like with like; there isnoise (or possible sampling bias) in the sample. Despite this noise, strongevidence was found to suggest a relatively lengthy transition period.International mobile student cohorts may not be fully aware of how tobehave (learn) in their new environments (particularly during the earlyperiods), the conceptual demands of written work or the complexitiesacross different assignments can preclude student transfer of skills andknowledge from one assignment to another (Schmitt, 2008). Assessmentpractices may not allow students to draw upon their own backgroundsand cultural experiences so that there is an imbalance between the homeand educational environment (Johnston, 2010). In addition, at the startof their programme the IMS may not know the need to read critically,or when to challenge and when to listen since assessments may containhidden prompts that are disadvantaging them. Another reason could bethe lack of support and formative feedback during those periods ofadaptation for students new to the higher education system need to knowthe rules and expectations (Quintrell and Westwood, 1994; Eisenchlasand Trevaskes, 2007; Grayson, 2008; Deakins, 2009).

Culture Shock and HE Performance 37

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 15: Culture Shock

IMS also have to be capable of linking the academic aspects with thepractical side especially within the structure of an MBA. One possibleway of creating this is via regular staff development workshops for thetutors and the inclusion of student personal portfolios assessable withinthe programme. For example, according to Jones (2010) the portfoliobridges the theoretical and practical elements as well as being a tool forsupporting the development of students to become professionals and toact as a guide in measuring the effectiveness of a programme. However,beyond anything else the higher education institution must recognise thetutor’s role in bridging the gap between their own and the teaching andlearning assumptions of their students. For example, some colleaguestend to stereotype the IMS as poor performers and plagiarists, althoughthis can be debated (Kember, 2000; Ramburuth and McCormick, 2001;Leathwood, 2005). Some colleagues also refer to IMS as rote learners(Prosser and Trigwell, 1999) relying on memorisation strategies (Bell,2000). Possible reasons could be due to the IMS having less-developedEnglish language skills (Ledwith and Seymour, 2001; Tran, 2008) or dueto their learning culture (Cadman, 2000; Robertson et al., 2000; Boden-horn et al., 2005; Kelly, 2008). However, it could be that there are othervariables at play here and it is the intention of the authors to investigatein more detail.

Consequently, one of the key requirements for successful studentinteraction with diversity is institutional support (Asmar et al., 2004). Arange of mechanisms may be used to support students during the tran-sition period such as longitudinal induction, English language sessionslinked to specific modules and the use of smaller class sizes but all thesecan be costly. In addition team bonding exercises, communication activi-ties with peers and the allocation of mentors (students on later stages ofthe MBA) in order to develop relationships may ease the process ofadaptation. Research shows that students do want common identity withother students at postgraduate level despite many international studentspreferring to develop links with their international peers rather than withtheir domestic students (Caruana and Ploner, 2010). Buddy-mentoringsystems mixing UK with non-UK students may be the way forward inincreasing learner maturity and improving general well-being.

Combining different cultures in groupwork can help the process ofadaptation with home country students communicating more frequentlywith IMS. This research found higher average marks where studentscollaborate with each other in student-centric environments. Neverthe-less groupwork is a valuable process of allowing diverse students tochallenge the learning opportunities for all members of the group and

38 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 16: Culture Shock

develop accordingly (Bowering et al., 2007; Carroll, 2008; DeVita, 2008;Ryan, 2008; Summers and Volet, 2008) since it encourages more ‘deep’learning (Lonka and Lindblom, 1996; De Vita, 2000; Green, 2007).Theinternational student is someone who is part of the movement of peoplein response to globalisation and should not be separate from otherstudents (Asmar, 2005).

Poor IMS performance, despite language and other support mecha-nisms, suggests that current strategies (frequently relying on the IMS tochange and adapt to a new education system) are not working as effec-tively as one would assume and there is a need for either type-three ortype-four strategy where the higher education institution also adapts tomeet global demands. The main argument for this comes from theduration of the transition period, which is typically greater than theduration of the taught higher education programme. In this case it doesnot mean the higher education institution simply supports the interna-tional mobile student it means it must design a better education systemto close the gap and provide full curriculum support and resources forstaff. ‘The challenge of what we might mean by an international curricu-lum is one which we need to tackle if international students are to feeltruly included in our programmes, and we need to confront the contentand methods of our teaching’ (Stiasny, 2008).

Proposed design

As international students can change the demographics of the classroom,there needs to be a shift from being mono-cultural to multicultural, ifinternal cohesion is to be maintained (Caruana and Ploner, 2010).Consequently there are many factors that might be adjusted by a highereducation institution to create an international pedagogy or a term calleda ‘glocal’ pedagogy via an education system that is not too far from thatwhich students have experienced in their home countries. Factors mightinclude: class size, credit size, module and assessment sequence andassessment strategy. Recommendations could include the following: edu-cators should seek to make the first semester of study more ‘global’ and,therefore, more similar to that already experienced by the IMS.This maymean making greater use of examinations (in a tutor-centric class), inaddition to group work, during semester one. Semester one courseworkinvolving group work should develop critical thinking skills and providestudent mutual support mechanisms. It is group work that enhancesmanagerial and business skills (Hansen, 2006; Heikkila and Lonka,2006; Lizzio and Wilson, 2006; Wang, 2007; Kelly, 2008). Deliveringlarger credit-size modules covering the core subjects in the first semester

Culture Shock and HE Performance 39

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 17: Culture Shock

allows more student–teacher contact hours and enables relationships tobe developed over time. It also allows continuous assessments to takeplace and to provide second chances for students to improve (Slee,2010). This also gives the tutor time to explore what skills internationalstudents bring with them and what expectations they may have (McLeanand Ransom, 2008) by allowing strategies that utilise the experience andknowledge of students to be developed (Egege and Kutieleh, 2004;Gregory and Jones, 2009). If this is done, the second semester can takemore of the traditional ‘M’ (Masterliness) level. For example, smallercredit-size modules (options) in the second semester with a maximum of15 students, perhaps delivered by familiar teaching staff, is another wayto nurture students’ progression and create an ‘M’ level environment.Having a different style to the first semester has many benefits. First, itwill help to increase student satisfaction and therefore motivation withimproved performance. Second, it will enable the IMS to learn some-thing of the host country education system. Finally, the student shouldbe prepared for a more autonomous second semester where critical andwider reading can be emphasised. Second-semester assessments will bemore (essay) coursework based. Such a pedagogy must focus on thespecial role of feedback, student relationships, student affective out-comes (satisfaction and well-being) and opportunities for the IMS tolearn the expectations with the assumptions of the host educationsystem.These factors will determine the design of curricula.Throughoutboth semesters but in particular during the first semester, interculturalinteraction and group work (written or oral) should be promoted tofoster a climate of inclusion. Within the classroom, tutors need to bemore explicit, provide assessment guidance, disseminate documentation,encourage more reading in advance, incorporate student-centred activi-ties and develop cross-cultural skills. One reason for the increased per-formance at the dissertation stage could be the regular supervisorymeetings that include individual discussions with relevant feedback in atimely fashion. Here students meet and discuss individually (rather thanin a formal teaching environment) their progress to date and the topicis frequently chosen by themselves with their motivation and personalinterest being higher. However for the taught modules, module tutorsand or personal tutors need to spend time disseminating ‘full’ feedbackfrequently so that students can learn and proceed successfully. However,these are merely the pieces that may be assembled to create the inter-national pedagogy. The design of teaching strategies and courses withtheir subsystems must ‘fit’ with each other and the situation. Thus theeducation system should mirror the transition period, starting more

40 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 18: Culture Shock

familiar to the IMS and then evolving towards that generally consideredto be postgraduate (autonomous and critical-thinking learners). It isduring this transition period that overseas students in particular need tobe provided with a longitudinal induction programme (weekly cohortstudy-skills classes) so that they develop in their learning ability andhence their confidence over time. Hence, there is a need for IMS tofamiliarise themselves with the culture of the institution and highereducation institutions to provide an opportunity for them to integrateand develop a sense of belonging within the host system especially on alongitudinal basis.

The question remains: which party should be made to adapt, thestudent or the higher education institution or both? Perhaps the latter isthe way forward in helping the IMS to achieve their outputs for IMS are‘weaker’ when assessed in host country education systems (such as in theUK) at ‘M’ level, which may be due to the cohort characteristics (age,gender, experience) and more importantly due to the ‘lengthy’ transitionperiod.

Conclusion

In conclusion, limited value is added by the higher education institutionpursuing a ‘traditional’ education strategy where the higher educationinstitution expects IMS to adapt within the taught component of apostgraduate programme. Given the importance of student satisfactionupon education performance, the higher education institution has tochange, especially if the value-added process of the UK higher educationinstitution system operating globally is to improve. It is important thatthe assumptions of the multicultural classroom are questioned andaddressed. IMS can be seen to be ‘problematic’ by the higher educationinstitution but the institution is also problematic to the IMS. Unlesshigher education institutions adapt their resources (staff and organisa-tional) to meet the needs of the overseas students, their expectations willnot be achieved (Harris, 1995; Briguglio, 2000; Skyrme, 2007; Hallet al., 2009). Despite attempts to help students adapt, many highereducation institutions and their staff are still unfamiliar with the needs ofIMS since cultural diversity has an impact on pedagogy as well as on staffand student welfare Rudzki, 1995; (Cheney, 2001; Ridley, 2004; Jones,2005). Again such impact is perhaps more prevalent with IMS whoprobably have more traumatic experiences than home country students.The gap or education system distance between the IMS and the highereducation institution may in some cases present itself more as a crackwhilst in other cases it will be a distinct crevice; the size of the differences

Culture Shock and HE Performance 41

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 19: Culture Shock

will impact upon the duration of the transition period and the changesmade by either entity to close the gap.

Limitations and future study

The main limitations of this study concerned sampling. In some cases,the home country students and IMS were sometimes not in the sameclassroom but in other cases they did share the same tutor.

Further research is required for this study is just the starting point andqualitative research will be undertaken by the researchers in the future.The higher education institution used for sampling in this study mainlyrecruit IMS from India, Pakistan and China, though up to twenty coun-tries are often represented in the MBA cohorts.

Finally the predominantly quantitative approach now requires supple-menting with some qualitative research so that future research can alsofind out what really happens in the classroom and investigate thestudent- and tutor-centric environments in more detail.

References

Allen, A. and Higgins, T. (1994) Higher Education—The International Student Experience.London: HEIST.

Altbach, P. G. (1991) Impact and Adjustment: Foreign Students in ComparativePerspective. Higher Education, 21, pp. 305–323.

Antonio, A. L. (2001) The Role of Interracial Interaction in the Development of Leader-ship Skills and Cultural Knowledge and Understanding. Research in Higher Education,42 (5), pp. 593–617.

Asmar, C. (2005) Internationalising Students: Reassessing Disaporic and Local StudentDifference. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (3), pp. 291–309.

Asmar, C., Proude, E. and Inge, L. (2004) ‘Unwelcome Sisters?’ An Analysis of Findingsfrom A Study of How Muslim Women (and Muslim Men) Experience University.Australian Journal of Education, 48 (1), pp. 47–63.

Barrett, R. and Cox, A. L. (2005) ‘At Least They’re Learning Something’: the Hazy Linebetween Collaboration and Collusion. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,30 (2), pp. 107–122.

Bell, J. (2000) Framing and Text Interpretation Across Languages and Cultures: A CaseStudy. Language Awareness, 9, pp. 1–16.

Blackstone, T. (2001) Why Learn? Higher Education in A Learning Society. HigherEducation Quarterly, 55 (2), pp. 175–184.

Bodenhorn, N., Jackson, A. and Farrell, R. (2005) Increasing Personal Cultural AwarenessThrough Discussions with International Students. International Journal of Teaching andLearning in Higher Education, 17 (1), pp. 63–68.

Bowering, M., Leggett, B. M., Harvey, M. and Hui, L. (2007) Opening up Thinking:Reflections on Group Work in a Bilingual Postgraduate Program. International Journalof Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19 (2), pp. 105–116.

Bowl, M. (2001) Experiencing the Barriers: Non Traditional Students Entering HigherEducation. Research Papers in Education, 16 (2), pp. 141–160.

Briguglio, C. (2000) Language and Cultural Issues for English as a Second/ForeignLanguage Students in Transnational Educational Settings. Higher Education in Europe,25 (3), pp. 425–434.

42 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 20: Culture Shock

Briguglio, C. (2007) Educating the Business Graduate of the 21st Century: Communica-tion for a Globalized World. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation, 19 (1), pp. 8–20.

Broekmann, I. and Pendlebury, S. (2002) Diversity, Background and Quest for Home inPostgraduate Education. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (3), pp. 287–295.

Brown, G. T. L. (2010) The Validity of Examination Essays in Higher Education: Issuesand Responses. Higher Education Quarterly, 64 (3), pp. 276–291.

Bruch, P. L., Higbee, J. L. and Siaka, K. (2007) Multiculturalism Incorporated: StudentPerceptions. Innovation Higher Education, 32, pp. 139–152.

Cadman, K. (2000) ‘Voices in the Air’: Evaluations of the Learning Experiences ofInternational Postgraduates and Their Supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education, 5 (4),pp. 475–491.

Carroll, J. (2008) Multicultural Groups for Discipline-Specific Tasks—Can a NewApproach Be More Effective? In J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds.), Teaching Inter-national Students: Improving Learning for All. London/New York: Routledge,pp. 84–91.

Caruana, V. and Ploner, J. (2010) Internationalisation and Equality and Diversity inHigher Education: Merging Identities. Report written and researched on behalf of theEquality Challenge Unit at Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds,Yorkshire.

Chapdelaine, R. and Alexitch, L. (2004) Social Skills Difficulty: Model of Culture Shockfor International Graduate Students. Journal of College Student Development, 4 (2), pp.167–184.

Chavez, A. F. (2007) Islands of Empowerment: Facilitating Multicultural Learning Com-munities in College. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,19 (3), pp. 274–288.

Cheney, R. S. (2001) Intercultural Business Communication, International Students,and Experiential Learning. Business Communication Quarterly, 64 (4), pp. 90–104.

Cope, C. and Staehr, L. (2005) Improving Students’ Learning Approaches throughIntervention in an Information Systems Learning Environment. Studies in Higher Edu-cation, 30 (2), pp. 181–197.

Dam-Mieras, R., Lansu, A., Rieckmann, M. and Michelsen, G. (2008) Development of anInterdisciplinary, Intercultural Masters’ Program on Sustainability: Learning from theRichness of Diversity. Innovative Higher Education, 32, pp. 251–264.

De Vita, G. (2000) Inclusive Approaches to Effective Communication and Active Partici-pation in the Multicultural Classroom: An International Business ManagementContext. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1 (2), pp. 168–180.

De Vita, G. (2008) Fostering Intercultural Learning. In J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds.),Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. London/New York:Routledge, pp. 75–83.

Deakins, E. (2009) Helping Students Value Cultural Diversity through Research-BasedTeaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 28 (2), pp. 209–226.

Deutschman, A. (1991) TheTrouble with Mbas. Fortune-European Edition, 124, pp. 67–79.Dobbins, K. (2009) Feeding Innovation with Learning Lunches: Contextualising Aca-

demic Innovation in Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33 (4),pp. 411–422.

Egege, S. and Kutieleh, S. (2004) Critical Thinking:Teaching Foreign Notions to ForeignStudents. International Education Journal, 4 (4), pp. 75–85.

Eisenchlas, S. and Trevaskes, S. (2007) Developing Intercultural Communication Skillsthrough Intergroup Interaction. Intercultural Education, 18 (5), pp. 413–425.

Fortuijn, J. D. (2002) Internationalising Learning and Teaching: A European Experience.Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26 (3), pp. 263–273.

Gerstman, J. and Rex, J. (2001) Improving Learning Outcomes in a MulticulturalClassroom. Paper for AARE, 2001 International Education Research Conference-Freemantle, Australia, December 2–6, 2001.

Culture Shock and HE Performance 43

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 21: Culture Shock

Grayson, J. P. (2008) The Experiences and Outcomes of Domestic and InternationalStudents at Four Canadian Universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(3), pp. 215–230.

Green, W. (2007) Write on Or Write off ? An Exploration of Asian International Students’Approaches to EssayWriting at an Australian University. Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 26 (3), pp. 329–344.

Gregory, J. and Jones, R. (2009) Maintaining Competence: A Grounded Theory Typologyor Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education. Higher Education, 57, pp. 769–785.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S. and Gurin, G. (2002) Diversity and Higher Education:Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3), pp.330–366.

Hall, G., Sung, T. and Wai-Ching, S. (2009) Mind the Gap ? A Case Study of the DifferingPerceptions of International Students and Their Lecturers on Postgraduate BusinessProgrammes. The International Journal of Management Education, 8 (1), pp. 53–62.

Hansen, R. (2006) Benefits and ProblemsWith StudentTeams: Suggestions for ImprovingTeam Projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82 (1), pp. 11–19.

Harris, R. (1995) Overseas Students in the United Kingdom University System. HigherEducation, 29 (1), pp. 77–92.

Heikkila, A. and Lonka, K. (2006) Studying in Higher Education: Students’ Approachesto Learning, Self Regulation and Cognitive Strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), pp. 99–117.

Hermans, J. W. (2005) The X-Factor—Internationalisation with a Small ‘C’. http://www.eaie.org/pdf/jointseminar/Hermans.pdf, last accessed 1 November 2010.

Hofstede, G. (1986) Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 10, pp. 301–320.

Huismann, J., Meek, L. and Wood, F. (2007) Institutional Diversity in Higher Education:A Cross-National and Longitudinal Analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61 (4), pp.563–577.

Johnston, M. (2010) Towards Culturally Appropriate Assessment ? A Contribution to theDebates. Higher Education Quarterly, 64 (3), pp. 231–245.

Jones, A. (2005) Culture and Context: Critical Thinking and Student Learning in Intro-ductory Macroeconomics. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (3), pp. 339–354.

Jones, E. (2010) A Professional Practice Portfolio for Quality and Learning. HigherEducation Quarterly, 64 (3), pp. 292–312.

Kelly, P. P. (2008) Achieving Desirable Group-Work Outcomes through the Group Allo-cation Process. Team Performance Management, 14 (2), pp. 22–38.

Kelly, P. P. (2009) Group Work and Multicultural Management Education. Journal ofTeaching in International Business, 20 (1), pp. 80–102.

Kember, D. (2000) Misconceptions about the Learning Approaches, Motivation andStudy Practices of Asian Students. Higher Education, 40, pp. 99–121.

Leathwood, C. (2005) Assessment Policy and Practice in Higher Education: Purposes,Standards and Equity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (3), pp. 307–324.

Ledwith, S. and Seymour, D. (2001) Home and Away: Preparing Students for Multicul-tural Management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (8), pp.1292–1312.

Lin, J. C. and Yi, J. K. (1997) Asian International Students’ Adjustment: Issues andProgram Suggestions. College Student Journal, 31 (4), pp. 473–479.

Lizzio, A. and Wilson, K. (2006) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Self-Managed LearningGroups: Understanding Students’ Choices and Concerns. Studies in Higher Education,31 (6), pp. 689–703.

Lonka, K. and Lindblom, S. (1996) Epistemologies, Conceptions of Learning and StudyPractices in Medicine and Psychology. Higher Education, 31, pp. 5–24.

44 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 22: Culture Shock

McLean, P. and Ransom, L. (2008) Building Intercultural Competencies—Implicationsfor Academic Skills and Development. In J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds.), TeachingInternational Students: Improving Learning for All. London/New York: Routledge, pp.45–62.

Meyer, L. H., Davidson, S., McKenzie, L., Rees, M., Anderson, H., Fletcher, R., Fletcher,R. B. and Johnston, P. M. (2010) An investigation of Tertiary Assessment Policy andPractice: Alignment and Contradictions. Higher Education Quarterly, 64 (3), pp. 331–350.

Morrison, J., Merrick, B., Higgs, S. and Le Metais, J. (2005) Researching the Performanceof International Students in the UK. Bioscience Education, 30 (3), pp. 327–337.

Oberg, K. (1960) Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. PracticalAnthropology, 7, pp. 170–179.

Olaniran, B. (1996) Social Skills Acquisition: A Closer Look at Foreign Students onCollege Campuses and Factors Influencing Their Level of Social Difficulty in SocialSituations. Communication Studies, 1745–1035, 47 (1), pp. 72–88.

Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching. Buckingham:The Society for Research into Higher Education)—The Open University Press.

Quintrell, N. and Westwood, M. (1994) The Influence of a Peer-Pairing Program onInternational Students’ First Year Experience and Use of Student Services. HigherEducation Research and Development, 13 (1), pp. 49–57.

Ramburuth, P. and McCormick, J. (2001) Learning Diversity in Higher Education: AComparative Study of Asian International and Australian Students. Higher Education,42, pp. 333–350.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2008) The Attainment of Ethnic Minority Students in UK HigherEducation. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (1), pp. 33–48.

Ridley, D. (2004) Puzzling Experiences in Higher Education: Critical Moments forConversation. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (1), pp. 91–107.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S. and Thomas, S. (2000) International Students, Learn-ing Environments and Perceptions: A Case Study Using the Delphi Technique. HigherEducation Research & Development, 19 (1), pp. 89–102.

Rose, S. and Bylander, J. (2007) Border Crossings: Engaging Students in DiversityWork and Intergroup Relations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31,pp. 251–264.

Rudzki, R. E. J. (1995) The Application of a Strategic Management Model to the Inter-nationalisation of Higher Education. Higher Education, 29 (4), pp. 421–441.

Ryan, J. (2008) Improving Teaching and Learning Practices for International Students-Implications for Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. In J. Carroll and J. Ryan(eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. London/New York:Routledge, pp. 92–100.

Ryan, J. and Hellmundt, S. (2008) Maximising International Students’ Cultural Capital.In J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning forAll. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 13–16.

Schmitt, D. (2008) Writing in the Classroom. In J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds.), TeachingInternational Students: Improving Learning for All. London/New York: Routledge, pp.63–74.

Shaw, J. (2009) The Diversity Paradox: Does Student Diversity Enhance or ChallengeExcellence? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33 (4), pp. 321–331.

Siegal, D. J. (2008) A Network Approach to Preparing Underrepresented Students: TheLEAD Model. Innovative Higher Education, 32 (4), pp. 195–207.

Skyrme, G. (2007) Entering the University: The Differentiated Experience of TwoChinese International Students in a New Zealand University. Studies in Higher Educa-tion, 32 (3), pp. 357–372.

Slee, J. (2010) A Systemic Approach to Culturally Responsive Assessment Practices andEvaluation. Higher Education Quarterly, 64 (3), pp. 246–260.

Culture Shock and HE Performance 45

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Page 23: Culture Shock

Smith, D. G. and Schonfeld, N. B. (2000) The Benefits of Diversity. About Campus,Nov/Dec, 16–23.

Steir, J. (2003) Internationalisation, Ethnic Diversity and the Acquisition of InterculturalCompetencies. Intercultural Education, 14 (1), pp. 77–91.

Stiasny, M. (2008) Mobility Matters: 40 Years of International Students, 40 Years ofUKCISA. London: UK Council for International Affairs. http://www.ukcisa.org.uk, lastaccessed last accessed 7 October 2009.

Summers, M. and Volet, S. (2008) Students’ Attitudes Towards Culturally Mixed Groupson International Campuses: Impact of Participation in Diverse and Non-DiverseGroups. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (4), pp. 357–370.

Tait, C. (2010) Chinese Students’ Perceptions of the Effects of Western UniversityExamination Formats on Their Learning. Higher Education Quarterly, 64 (3), pp.261–275.

Teixeira, P. and Amaral, A. (2001) Private Higher Education and Diversity: An ExploratorySurvey. Higher Education Quarterly, 55 (4), pp. 359–395.

Tomalin, E. (2007) Supporting Cultural and Religious Diversity in Higher Education:Pedagogy and beyond. Teaching in Higher Education, 12 (5–6), pp. 621–634.

Tran, L. T. (2008) Unpacking Academic Requirements: International Students in Man-agement and Education Disciplines. Higher Education Research & Development, 27 (3),pp. 245–256.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999) Relations between Teachers’Approaches to Teaching and Students’ Approaches to Learning. Higher Education, 37,pp. 57–70.

Tseng, W. and Newton, F. (2002) International Students’ Strategies forWell-Being. CollegeStudent Journal, 36 (4), pp. 591–597.

Wang, L. (2007) Variation in Learning Styles in a Group of Chinese English as a ForeignLanguage Learners. International Education Journal, 8 (2), pp. 408–417.

Woodward-Kron, R. (2007) Negotiating Meanings and Scaffolding Learning: WritingSupport for Non-English Speaking Background Postgraduate Students. Higher Educa-tion Research & Development, 26 (3), pp. 253–268.

Zakaria, N. (2000) The Effects of Cross- Cultural Training on the Acculturation Processof the Global Workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 21 (6), pp. 492–510.

46 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Authors. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.