fostering academic self-concept: advisor support and sense of belonging among international and...

http://aerj.aera.netJournal

American Educational Research

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/10/0002831212446662The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.3102/0002831212446662

published online 10 May 2012Am Educ Res JNicola Curtin, Abigail J. Stewart and Joan M. Ostrove

Belonging Among International and Domestic Graduate StudentsFostering Academic Self-Concept: Advisor Support and Sense of

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Educational Research JournalAdditional services and information for

http://aerj.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://aerj.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:

What is This?

- May 10, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at CLARK UNIV on May 16, 2012http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

http://aerj.aera.net

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/10/0002831212446662

http://www.aera.net

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://aerj.aera.net/alerts

http://aerj.aera.net/subscriptions

http://www.aera.net/reprints

http://www.aera.net/permissions

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/10/0002831212446662.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Fostering Academic Self-Concept:Advisor Support and Sense of Belonging

Among International and DomesticGraduate Students

Nicola CurtinClark UniversityAbigail J. Stewart

University of MichiganJoan M. Ostrove

Macalester College

International doctoral students in the United States face challenges of accul-turation in academia yet complete graduate school at higher rates and morequickly than their domestic counterparts. This study examined advisor sup-port, sense of belonging, and academic self-concept among internationaland domestic doctoral students at a research university in the MidwesternUnited States. International students placed a higher value on research-related and other academic experiences than domestic students; they also re-ported a stronger sense of belonging. Advisor support was associated witha stronger sense of belonging and academic self-concept for both groups.However, while sense of belonging was related to academic self-conceptamong domestic students, there was no relationship between the two amonginternational students.

NICOLA CURTIN is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, ClarkUniversity, Worcester, MA 01610; e-mail: [email protected]. Her research interestsinclude how students’ identities and experiences shape their social attitudes, aca-demic experiences, and career goals, as well as the development of commitmentsto social change among different groups of people.

ABIGAIL J. STEWART is a professor of psychology and women’s studies at the Universityof Michigan. Her research interests include longitudinal research on women’s lives,the impact of race, gender and generation in people’s lives, and the creation of uni-versity environments that are more inclusive.

JOAN M. OSTROVE is an associate professor in the psychology department at MacalesterCollege. Her research interests are focused on the ways in which our social structuralpositions (particularly with respect to gender, social class, and disability) shape ourindividual and interpersonal experiences.

American Educational Research Journal

Month XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1–30

DOI: 10.3102/0002831212446662

� 2012 AERA. http://aerj.aera.net

at CLARK UNIV on May 16, 2012http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from


KEYWORDS: advisor support, international students, belonging, academicconfidence, doctoral students

Introduction

A significant proportion of people receiving doctoral degrees in theUnited States are students who are not from the United States (and arereferred to, from a U.S. perspective, as international students).International students contribute important financial and intellectual valueto U.S. graduate programs (e.g., Andrade, 2006, 2008; Chellaraj, Maskus, &Mattoo, 2008; Davis, 2002). Research on international students reveals some-thing of a paradox. International students face unique challenges related toacculturation and integration with domestic students (see e.g., Ku, Lahman,Yeh, & Cheng, 2008; McClure, 2007; Okorocha, 1996; Zhai, 2004). At thesame time, their rates of graduate school completion are higher (and faster)than those of domestic students (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008). Thegoals of the current study are to understand differences between interna-tional and domestic doctoral students’ experiences in an effort to illuminatethis apparent paradox and to identify factors that may contribute to all doc-toral students’ feelings of support and academic success.

Relatively little research has examined international and domestic doc-toral students’ beliefs about important graduate school experiences, includingadvisor support, a sense of belonging in graduate school, and academic self-concept. The current study aims to address this gap in the literature by exam-ining the degree to which advisor support is important for student feelings ofsuccess in graduate school and the academy, both in terms of students’ per-ceptions of the degree to which their departments are a place where theybelong, as well as their sense of themselves as successful academics in grad-uate school. In order to understand potential differences between interna-tional and domestic students, we compared the relationships among advisorsupport, belonging, and academic self-concept in the two groups. Becauseour sample includes students at all levels of their doctoral careers, we define‘‘advisor’’ as the person who students indicate provided the majority of guid-ance to their research and the person with whom they have the most contact.In the broader literature both the terms advisor and academic advisor areused. Generally these terms are used interchangeably to describe the personchosen by (or sometimes assigned to) students to provide overall guidance,and especially research training. Thus, advisors often dispense professionaland socializing advice, and even emotional support.

We begin by providing some context for understanding the unique chal-lenges faced by international doctoral students navigating the U.S. academy,then discuss the importance of advisor support for doctoral student success,and provide a brief review of the importance of both sense of belonging andacademic self-concept as aspects of the doctoral student experience. Finally,

Curtin et al.

2 at CLARK UNIV on May 16, 2012http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from


we present data on group differences in doctoral student experiences anddifferences between domestic and international students.

International Students in the U.S. Academy

According to the Institute of International Education (n.d.), in 2009–2010,there were 293,885 international students pursuing graduate education in theUnited States (151,252 students seeking master’s degrees vs. 116,254 studentsseeking doctoral degrees). These international students are a source of finan-cial (Andrade, 2006; Davis, 2002), as well as intellectual and technological(Chellaraj et al., 2008), strength for the United States. Indeed, in his 2011State of the Union address, President Obama acknowledged this strengthand called for policies to ensure that international students remain in theUnited States after receiving their degrees here. In fact, many international stu-dents do stay in the United States following the completion of their graduatedegrees. Finn (2010) used tax data to determine ‘‘stay rates’’ of internationalstudents in the United States after they have received their doctorate degrees.As of 2007, he found rates ranging from a 60% 10-year stay rate among 1997graduates to a 75% 1-year stay rate among 2006 graduates. Others (e.g.,Johnson & Regets, 1998) have argued that there is ‘‘brain circulation’’ of inter-national students; while about half of those receiving science or engineeringdegrees may stay in the United States, they also build and maintain networksin their home countries or continents. This ‘‘brain circulation’’ theory contra-dicts the ‘‘brain drain’’ concept and suggests that while some international stu-dents may stay in the United States only briefly, others remain here for longperiods, and the United States benefits from their international connectionsand networks. Based both on the sheer numbers of international studentsand the intellectual and professional roles they play post graduation in theUnited States and in their home countries, researchers have argued that weneed to develop an increased understanding of international students’ experi-ences (Andrade, 2006). Because they may not only be unfamiliar with U.S. cul-ture but also with the U.S. academic system itself, foreign doctoral students faceunique challenges in navigating graduate school in the United States (Andrade,2008). Much of the current research in this area, which remains quite limited,has focused on the challenges of acculturation (e.g., Ku et al., 2008; McClure,2007; Okorocha, 1996; Zhai, 2004), rather than on graduate school success.

Social isolation (e.g., Erichsen & Bolliger, 2011; McClure, 2007), in partic-ular isolation from American peers (Trice, 2004; 2007), is a common theme inthe literature on international doctoral student experiences. In a study exam-ining the effects of international students’ interactions with American students,Trice (2004) found that international students who socialized more withAmericans were not only better acculturated to the United States, but alsosocialized more with international students from other countries and partici-pated in more on-campus activities (see also Zimmerman, 1995). Other

International and Domestic Graduate Students



research findings (Chen, 1999; Schram & Lauver, 1988) show more negativeeffects of social contact with domestic students, including feelings of anxietyand depression. Moreover, there is evidence that international students benefitfrom at least some contact with co-nationals also in the United States(Andrade, 2008; Lin & Yi, 1997). Despite the differences, the findings allseem to indicate that developing a sense of belonging in the U.S. academiccommunity may be particularly difficult for international students.

It is important to note that, at least at the graduate level, the challengesfaced by international students do not seem to adversely affect their overallcompletion and time-to-degree rates. According to The Council of GraduateSchools (2008), which collected data from graduate programs in the UnitedStates and Canada across a 10-year period, international students’ comple-tion rate (for the PhD) was 67% (compared with domestic students’ rate of54%). Additionally, when examining those students who completed their de-grees within 10 years, the Council of Graduate Schools found that 24% ofdomestic students did so after year 7, compared to only 12% of internationalstudents (indicating that international students finished faster, on average).These findings indicate that although international students may indeedexperience difficulties with acculturation and feelings of belonging, andhave specific support needs, these challenges do not seem to affect theiraggregate completion rates or time to degree. This paradox deserves furtherattention; comparing international and domestic students on important ex-periences may allow us more fully to understand the differences that existand what their implications may be for how students navigate graduate edu-cation. This paradox may be partially explained by selection processes, suchthat international students who come to the United States may be particularlytalented, committed, or ambitious (and thus less likely to leave and morelikely to complete their degrees quickly). However, there may also be differ-ences in doctoral students’ experiences in graduate school that may help usunderstand the difference in outcomes. Previous research, reviewed in thefollowing sections, suggests that the graduate school experience is criticallyinfluenced by advisor support, a sense of belonging, and academic self-con-cept. We now address each of these and their implications for the experien-ces of both international and domestic doctoral students in the United States.

The Role of Advisor Support in the Graduate Experience

The apprenticeship model of most PhD programs means that the rela-tionship between a doctoral student and his or her advisor is a key aspectof both doctoral student satisfaction (Zhao, Golde, & McCormick, 2007)and success (Lovitts, 2001). Advisors serve to connect students to their de-partments (Lovitts, 2001), orient them to their fields (Green, 1991; Weiss,1981), and are sources of both explicit (Bieber & Worley, 2006) and tacit(Gerholm, 1990) knowledge about their fields. Good advisors are highly

Curtin et al.



accessible (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988; Weiss, 1981), help students progressthrough the program in a timely manner (Lovitts, 2001), treat the doctoralstudent as a junior colleague and a peer-in-training (Bieber & Worley,2006; Girves & Wemmerus, 1988), and convey a sense of confidence inthe doctoral student’s ability to succeed (Bell-Ellison & Dedrick, 2008).

Much of the research on the relationship between doctoral students andtheir advisors has focused on its role in attrition. Heath (2002) found that stu-dents who met more frequently with their advisors were more likely to finishtheir PhD degrees. Other researchers have focused on the quality and notsimply the quantity of advisor-student relationships. In her examination ofthose individuals who left doctoral programs compared with those whocompleted their degrees, Lovitts (2001) found that noncompleters reportedthat their advisors were significantly less interested in them as people, intheir research ideas, and in their professional development. Indeed Jacks,Chubin, Porter, and Connolly (1983, p. 75) noted that ‘‘poor working rela-tionship with advisor and/or committee’’ was tied with financial difficultiesas the most common reason given for dropping out of a PhD program;nearly half of their sample cited this as a reason for attrition. Golde (2005)similarly found that poor doctoral student–advisor relationships were impli-cated in doctoral student attrition.

In contrast, research consistently shows that constructive advisor rela-tionships positively affect important student outcomes, including sense ofbelonging and academic self-concept. For example, Lovitts (2001) foundthat faculty who were ‘‘high producers’’ of PhD graduates (vs. those whograduated fewer students, or were ‘‘low producers’’) tended to have studentswho reported greater satisfaction with their sense of connection and net-working within their graduate department. These students were moreclosely connected to their departments compared to the students of low pro-ducers. These high producers generally tended to have better relationshipswith their students. Girves and Wemmerus (1988) found that doctoral stu-dents’ perception of the quality of their relationships with advisors wasrelated to their sense of alienation (or acceptance) within their departmentand the degree to which they were involved in their doctoral programs.

In addition to helping students feel a sense of connection and fit within thedepartment, advisors can also facilitate students’ positive beliefs about them-selves as academics. For example, Cartwright (1972) found that the extent towhich students believed that their academic advisors thought well of themwas related positively to their academic self-concept. In their interviews withdoctoral students, Bieber and Worley (2006) reported many instances of stu-dents referring to their faculty mentors as both encouraging their interest inpursuing an academic career as well as providing valuable feedback thathelped students’ development as academics. Weiss (1981) found that thedegree of advisor contact was related to doctoral students’ productivity (see




also Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix, & Davidson, 1986; Tenenbaum,Crosby, & Gliner, 2001), as well as positive self-concept.

International doctoral students view their advisors as potential sourcesof information and support as they navigate graduate school. Ku and col-leagues (2008) found that among international doctoral students, academicadvisor support was considered key to academic success and well-being.Zhai (2004) interviewed international doctoral students, asking them aboutchallenges adjusting to life in the United States, sources of support for per-sonal issues, and the ways in which they used university-provided supportservices. Students indicated that making the adjustment to the U.S. academicclimate was the most significant challenge in adjusting to life in the UnitedStates. Some of these challenges were related to language barriers, but othersincluded different, and unfamiliar, academic structures (called learningshock; see Okorocha, 1996). When asked about sources of support for theseissues, academic advisors were the third most commonly listed source ofsupport (after friends and family and the office of international education).

International students may have different expectations about their rela-tionships with advisors compared to domestic students. For example, Rose(2005) found that international doctoral students were more likely than theirdomestic counterparts to indicate that having an advisor relationship basedon personality and interpersonal closeness was important to them. In addi-tion to viewing faculty support as important, there is some evidence thatinternational doctoral students are generally satisfied with the support thatthey receive. For example, Trice and Yoo (2007) surveyed international stu-dents at a Midwestern university about their level of satisfaction with theirgraduate school experiences; most students reported being satisfied withtheir academic experiences, including their interactions with faculty.However, we know little about the outcomes of these interactions. Whileinternational students may emphasize the importance of advisors in inter-views, there is little evidence that this support matters for the outcomes oftheir graduate school experiences.

In summary, advisor support is likely to play a key role in the experien-ces of doctoral students as they navigate their way through graduate school,develop a sense of belonging, and view themselves as competent and pro-ductive members of the academy.

The Importance of Sense of Belonging

Doctoral students attempt to determine whether academia is an institu-tion that both welcomes them and ‘‘fits’’ them, asking themselves if theybelong (Austin, 2002). Given that many PhD programs aim to produce futureacademic scholars, the issue of fit is particularly important. Lovitts (2001)found that one of the basic differences between those doctoral studentswho completed their PhD programs and those who did not was the extent

Curtin et al.



to which they were integrated into the department community. This findingis consistent with research on college attrition and persistence (e.g., Bean,1980; Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2007; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, &Associates, 2005; Tinto, 1993), as well as research on the adjustment ofminority students to different campus environments (Locks, Hurtado,Bowman, & Oseguera, 2008) and in the course of the transition to college(Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Ostrove, Stewart, and Curtin (2011) found thatthe degree to which students felt that they belonged in graduate school pos-itively affected their sense of academic self-concept, or the degree to whichthey viewed themselves as competent and successful students, and in turntheir commitment to an academic career (see also Ulku-Steiner, Kurtz-Costes, & Kinlaw, 2000). At the same time, international students (perhapslike minority students in the United States) benefit from ties with co-nation-als with whom they share cultural experiences that are different from thoseof most domestic students (Andrade, 2008).

Academic Self-Concept and Academic Career Goals

Academic self-concept consists of the beliefs, attitudes, and self-percep-tions that students have about their academic competence and performance(Lent, Brown, & Gore, 1997) and is distinct from self-concept in other do-mains (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). It serves as an important mea-sure of success in school because of its relation to GPA (assessed primarilyamong undergraduates; e.g., Awad, 2007; Marsh, Byrne, & Yeung, 1999)and career commitment (Ulku-Steiner et al., 2000). Building on previousresearch on academic self-concept (e.g., Awad, 2007; Lindholm, 2004;Ulku-Steiner et al., 2000), Ostrove and colleagues (2011) found that aca-demic self-concept was a strong predictor of interest in pursuing an aca-demic research career. Such a career is arguably the main purpose andfocus of most PhD-level graduate training programs. However, we know lit-tle about how the relationship between a doctoral student and his or hergraduate advisor influences his or her sense of academic self-concept.Additionally, although Ostrove and colleagues (2011) provided evidencethat a sense of belonging predicts academic self-concept, we do not knowif this relationship holds for both international and domestic doctoralstudents.

Current Study

The current study had two broad research questions. The first concernswhether there are differences between international and domestic doctoralstudent experiences of graduate school, and the second is whether advisorsupport and belonging are related to academic self-concept in both groups.Given the literature reviewed previously, there are several reasons toexplore possible differences between domestic and international students’




graduate school experiences. The challenge of balancing the demands ofcultural acclimation and a rigorous academic program may have implicationsfor international students’ experience of graduate school. As the literature re-viewed previously shows, academic support—such as a supportive relation-ship with one’s academic advisor—is important for doctoral students ingeneral, and a sense of belonging has been identified as an important featureof adjustment to academic contexts. However, we know little about whetherthese variables play different roles in the experiences of international anddomestic doctoral students. Understanding this would allow us to knowhow best to serve the needs of students facing specific acculturation de-mands and could help explain the discrepancy between the challenges asso-ciated with those demands, and international students’ success in completinggraduate school in a timely manner.

Research Question 1: International Versus Domestic Doctoral Student

Experiences

First, we examined the degree to which international and doctoral stu-dents attached importance to three key areas of their academic experiences:research-related, professional development, and social experiences. Itseemed clear from the existing research that international students valuegraduate education but have more challenging social experiences in gradu-ate school than do domestic students. Given that many international studentstravel great distances and face unfamiliar academic and cultural climates toachieve their graduate degrees, it seems likely that they place a high pre-mium on graduate school experiences related to research and professionaldevelopment. Therefore, we hypothesized that they would rate these expe-riences as more important than their domestic counterparts. We furtherhypothesized that international and domestic students would differ in theirratings of the importance of social experiences. International students faceparticular social challenges such as isolation (Trice, 2004; 2007), and someresearch has even found negative consequences of increased social contactbetween domestic and international students (Chen, 1999; Schram & Lauver,1988). Therefore, we hypothesized that international students would valuesocial experiences less than their domestic counterparts. We expected thisdevaluation of social experiences to be a form of self-protection by interna-tional students, who may place less value on a domain where they tend tohave more challenges and less success (see Nussbaum & Steele, 2007;Steele, 1997). We also hypothesized that social experiences would be lessimportant to both groups than experiences in the two other domains. Thatis, although we expected mean differences between the two groups inresearch-related and professional experiences, we hypothesized that therewould not be rank-order differences between the two groups. We hypothe-sized that all doctoral students would value graduate school experiences in

Curtin et al.



the following order: research related, professional development, and social.Finally, we hypothesized that research-related experiences would be themost valued, as students were at a research-intensive university that placeda great deal of emphasis on such experiences. Further, it seemed likely thatmost students spend the majority of their time engaged in research.

Research Question 2: The Relationship Among Advisor Support, Belonging,

and Academic Self-Concept in International and Domestic Students

We were also interested in three other areas of doctoral student experi-ences: perceptions of advisor support, sense of belonging in their depart-ment, and a positive sense of academic self. Rose (2005) found thatinternational students placed greater emphasis than domestic students onthe interpersonal aspects of their relationships with their faculty advisors,and Trice and Yoo (2007) reported that international doctoral students aregenerally quite content with their relationships with their advisors.Therefore, we hypothesized that international doctoral students wouldreport significantly more advisor support than domestic students. Despitethat perception, in light of existing research on the challenges faced by inter-national students, we hypothesized that they would report significantlylower feelings of belonging in their department, compared to domestic stu-dents. Finally, given that we expected international doctoral students toplace greater importance on the more academic and professional aspectsof their graduate experiences, we hypothesized that they would report sig-nificantly higher levels of positive academic self-concept.

Our second research question concerned the relationships between aca-demic self-concept and both advisor support and student belonging forinternational and domestic doctoral students. We hypothesized that advisorsupport would be associated with all doctoral students’ sense of belongingwithin their departments, as well as academic self-concept for all students.However, we expected to find group differences in the relationship betweenbelonging and academic self-concept. According to previous research thatwas not focused on differences between international and domestic students(Ostrove et al., 2011), a sense of belonging supports the development ofdoctoral students’ academic self-concept. Therefore, we hypothesized thatbelonging would be related to academic self-concept. However, we only ex-pected this relationship to be significant for domestic students. Becauseinternational students face more difficulty developing a sense of belongingand are likely to have fewer expectations (explicit or not) of ‘‘fitting in,’’we expected it would not be as relevant to their sense of themselves as ‘‘suc-cessful’’ academics. Therefore, we predicted that advisor support, but notbelonging, would be related to international students’ academic self-concept. In contrast, for domestic students, we expected that both advisor




support and belonging would predict academic self-concept. See Figure 1for the hypothesized models.

The current project contributes to the literature on advisor support, stu-dent well-being, and academic achievement. We focus not only on similari-ties and differences between international and domestic doctoral studentswith respect to important experiences in graduate school, but we also assessthe role that advisor support plays in both international and domestic doc-toral students’ sense of belonging in graduate school and the degree towhich it is associated with perceptions of academic success.

Method

The current analyses are based on data from a Graduate Student ClimateSurvey conducted at a large Midwestern research university. The secondauthor was part of the committee that designed the survey. In previous anal-yses of the same data set, Ostrove and colleagues (2011) examined the roleof social class background in predicting doctoral students’ professional aspi-rations. In that study, sense of belonging was related to academic self-concept, which predicted intention to enter the professoriate at a ‘‘topresearch university.’’ Here we focus on academic self-concept as a measureof self-perceived success in graduate school. Additionally, in contrast to the

Model A

Model B

Advisor Support

Sense ofBelonging

AcademicSelf-Concept

Advisor Support

Sense ofBelonging


Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships among advisor support, belonging, and aca-

demic self-concept for domestic (Model A) and international (Model B) students.

Note. Covariates not pictured; however, pathways from covariates to all variables

were included in all analyses.

Curtin et al.



previous study, we examine the relationship between advisor support,belonging, and academic self-concept for all students.

Participants and Procedure

Doctoral students who were enrolled in PhD programs and who hadcompleted at least one year of graduate school at the university were eligibleto participate in the Graduate Student Climate Survey (the sample isdescribed in greater detail in Ostrove et al., 2011). Participants were re-cruited by e-mail to complete a Web-based survey. The eligible pool of par-ticipants included 3,410 PhD students, and of these, 1,454 began the survey(an overall response rate of 43%). Approximately 300 students completedthe entire survey except for the demographic section. Analyses of the repre-sentativeness of the sample indicated that it reflected the distribution of dis-cipline fields at the university, though women were somewhatoverrepresented among respondents. Because we were particularly inter-ested in the international status measures from the demographic sample,our final sample was limited to the 841 students who began their universitygraduate programs between 1998 and 2003, completed the demographicsection, and indicated that they were either U.S. citizens (including sec-ond-generation immigrants) or non-U.S. citizens who had lived in theUnited States for 10 or fewer years. T-test analyses comparing those studentsselected for these analyses to those excluded revealed no significant differ-ences on any of the variables of interest in this study. These analyses werealso run separately, comparing international and domestic students who pro-vided demographic information to those who did not, and no significant dif-ferences emerged for either group. The key data we could not include in thisstudy were from students who did not provide demographic information(e.g., international status, gender, and ethnicity). Although it is possiblethat the students who did not complete the demographic section of the ques-tionnaire differ from those students who did in important ways, they werenot significantly different on the variables of interest to this study.

Data for this study were drawn from a single public research institution.These types of institutions award about two-thirds of all doctoral degreesnationally (Bell, 2011). At the study institution, about one-third of the doc-toral students are international; 44% are women; and the rates of underrep-resented domestic minorities are 5% African American, 7% are Latino/Hispanic, and 72% are White. The rates in our sample were generally similar,with the exceptions being that international students were somewhat under-represented (22% of the students in our sample were international) andwomen were somewhat overrepresented (60% were women). Given poten-tial difficulties in responding in English for international students and theusual pattern of women being more willing to participate in survey research,these differences are not surprising. The majority of the sample (72%) was




White; 28% of the sample included people of color of varying racial-ethnicself-descriptions (see the following for the racial/ethnic breakdown of thesample by international vs. domestic student status). These rates are similarto national rates as reported (often for doctoral and master’s students com-bined) by the Council of Graduate Students (Bell, 2011).

Measures: Demographic Control Variables

Previous research has found that gender, ethnicity, academic field, andfinancial situation all affect advisor-student relationships and also contributeto a sense of belonging in graduate school as well as academic self-concept(Margolis & Romero, 1998; Ostrove, Stewart, & Curtin, 2011; Quintana,Vogel, & Ybarra, 1991). Therefore we assessed whether we should controlfor them in our analyses.

Ethnicity

Students were asked an open-ended question: ‘‘Please indicate how youdescribe your racial or ethnic identity.’’ Their responses were grouped intothe following categories: White or Caucasian (which included Arab/MiddleEastern participants), Asian background, and African or Hispanic back-ground. Two dummy variables were created with White/Caucasian or otheras the reference category for Asian background and African or Hispanicbackground. Of the sample, 72% identified as White, 18% as Asian orAsian American, and 10% as Black or Hispanic. It is important to note thatalthough the specific country or region a student comes from may be impor-tant, particularly among international students, no such information wasasked for in the survey.

Financial Situation

Virtually all doctoral students and 100% of international students at thisinstitution receive full funding through fellowships, research assistantships,and teaching fellowships throughout their graduate school careers.Therefore it was important to assess students’ financial pressures beyondthe support they are provided. Current financial situation was computedfrom two items. Participants were asked if they had family members forwhom they were financially responsible (yes or no) and if they came to theirgraduate programs with personal debt from their undergraduate education(yes or no). A current financial situation variable was created by adding 1point for each of these difficulties reported, for a final score ranging from0 (if no financial responsibilities were reported) to 2 (if individuals reportedbeing financially responsible for family members and having undergraduatedebt). Of the sample, 61% reported no current financial struggles, 36%scored a 1 on the scale, and 3% scored a 2.

Curtin et al.



Academic Field

Students’ academic fields were classified into four divisional categories:biological and health sciences (21% of doctoral students), physical sciencesand engineering (32%), social sciences (30%), and humanities (17%). Threedummy variables (for physical sciences and engineering, social sciences, andhumanities) were created, with biological and health sciences serving as thereference category.

International Status

Students’ international versus U.S. status was assessed using two items.The first asked participants if they were U.S. citizens (‘‘Are you a U.S. citi-zen?’’), the second asked non-U.S. citizens to indicate for how long theyhad been in the United States. Participants indicating that they were notU.S. citizens but had been in the United States for longer than 10 years (n =18) were excluded from the current study. Our goal was to define as interna-tional only students who had come here simply to study and not first-gener-ation immigrants who may have received primary or secondary education inthe United States, even if they do not hold citizenship. As a result, 188 partic-ipants were defined as international (meaning that they were not U.S. studentsand had been in the country less than 10 years; 22%) and 653 were domestic.

Comparison of International and Domestic Students

The two groups of students are different in terms of both their back-ground characteristics and their academic fields (see Table 1). There were sig-nificantly more women in the domestic student group, compared to theinternational student group. There were also significantly more White studentsin the domestic group, compared to international students. However, therewere significantly more students who identified as Asian among internationalstudents than among domestic students; and there were significantly moredomestic students who identified as Black or Hispanic (and a few who iden-tified as Native American), compared to international students.

In terms of academic fields, there was no difference in the rate of studyof biological and health fields between international and domestic students.In contrast, significantly more international than domestic students werestudying in the physical sciences or engineering. The differences in thesocial sciences and humanities were in the opposite direction: Significantlymore domestic students were studying in social science or humanities fields,compared to international students.

Finally, international students reported fewer financial obligations thandomestic students.

Because of these significant group differences, we controlled in all anal-yses for gender, ethnicity, financial situation, and academic field.




Measures: Experience Variables

Importance of Graduate School Experiences

Students were asked to rate the personal importance of a series of grad-uate school experiences on a 4-point scale from waste of time to extremelyimportant (note that students could also select ‘‘not applicable’’; these re-sponses were excluded from the analyses). Based on eight items, three dif-ferent scales were developed to assess the importance of experiences inthree areas: research related, professional development, and social.

Research-related experiences. Three items assessed students’ ratings ofresearch-related experiences: learning research techniques, conductingresearch, and opportunities to present your research. A score for each par-ticipant was generated using the mean of all three items. The mean scorefor the sample on this scale was 3.51 (SD = .42; a = .61).

Professional development experiences. Three items assessed students’ratings of experiences related to professional development: attending pro-fessional conferences; departmental talks, seminars, and brown bags; andmeeting outside speakers. A score for each participant was generated usingthe mean of all three items. The mean score for the sample on this scale was3.00 (SD = .56; a = .72).

Social experiences. One item assessed students’ ratings of social experi-ences: receptions, parties, and other social events. The mean score for thesample on this item was 2.40 (SD = .80).

Table 1

Comparisons of Domestic and International Students on

Demographic Control Variables

Percentage of

Domestic Students

Percentage of

International Students

Gender

Female 64 44***

Ethnicity

White 81 40***

Asian 7.5 55.5***

Black and Hispanic 11 4.3**

Academic division

Biological sciences 21 22

Physical sciences and engineering 27 48***

Social sciences 33 21***

Humanities 19 9***

Financial struggle (.0) 44 24***

**p \ .01. ***p \ .001. Based on chi-square comparisons.

Curtin et al.



Advisor Support

Because students varied in their stage of graduate school, they wereasked to identify a ‘‘primary advisor’’:

Some students have one main or primary advisor/mentor. Other stu-dents develop advising and mentoring relationships with more thanone faculty member. If you have more than one advisor/mentor,please choose one to refer to as your primary advisor. Usually thisfaculty member will be from your home department and/or will offerthe majority of guidance and direction regarding your research. If youare unable to decide which advisory is ‘‘primary,’’ then for this surveyplease choose the one with whom you have the most contact.

Advisor support was assessed using a 19-item measure that asked partic-ipants to rate the degree to which they agreed (on a 4-point scale of stronglydisagree to strongly agree) that their primary advisor offered different kindsof support. Sample items include, ‘‘is available to me when I need help withmy research’’ and ‘‘is available to me when I need to talk about other aspectsof my program.’’ Each participant received one score based on the mean oftheir responses to all 19 items. The average score for the sample was 2.94(SD = .54; a = .92), and this score was used in both group comparisonsand the structural equation model.

Sense of Belonging

The original survey included a 15-item semantic differential assessmentof the climate of the student’s graduate department or area. Of these, threeitems were used to measure ‘‘sense of belonging’’: welcoming–alienating,respectful–disrespectful, and down-to-earth–snobbish. Participants wereasked to describe their perceptions of the climate in their department orarea using a 5-point scale that ranged from, for example, welcoming to alien-ating. This indirect measure assesses the degree to which the students expe-rience their departments (which are the key locations of their academicdevelopment) as welcoming to them; it was also used to assess belongingin Ostrove and colleagues (2011). The sample average score was 3.60 (SD= .91; a = .78), and this overall scale was used for comparison of the groups;the separate items assessing the underlying construct are separately indi-cated in the structural equation model.

Academic Self-Concept

The academic self-concept scale consisted of eight items. Six of theseitems assessed participants’ confidence in different aspects of their graduateschool experience (e.g., ‘‘I feel confident that I am in the right field’’ and ‘‘Ifeel confident that I can be successful in my field’’). Participants rated theirconfidence on a 4-point scale ranging from not at all true to very true.




One item assessed participants’ feelings of academic discouragement and wasa count of six areas in which a student might have felt discouraged (coursematerial, course selection, career opportunities, academic performance,research, and interaction with advisor). Participants indicated whether ornot they had ever felt discouraged about any of those issues (for an item rangeof 0-6), and the total score was reversed so that high scores indicated low lev-els of discouragement. Finally, an individual question (‘‘How well do youthink you are doing in graduate school,’’ to which participants respondedon a 5-point scale ranging from not sure I’ll make it to extremely well, oneof the best in my cohort) was included as a single item to assess perceived aca-demic performance. For purposes of comparison of the two groups, all itemswere standardized and then combined to create a scale assessing academicself-concept (M = .00; SD = 60; a = .74). In the structural equation model,the items assessing underlying constructs are identified.

Because we were concerned that the number of years a person hadbeen in graduate school might affect the outcome we were interested in,we ran a series of simple Pearson correlations to determine whether thenumber of years in graduate school was related to each of these outcomes.Years in graduate school was unrelated to important doctoral student expe-riences (research, professional development, and social), as well as to advi-sor support, sense of belonging, and academic self-concept. This variablewas therefore not considered in subsequent analyses.

Plan of Analyses

In order to examine potential differences between international anddomestic doctoral student experiences in the perceived importance ofresearch, professional development, and social experiences, as well as toexamine within-group differences on the mean rankings of the importanceof each domain of experience (e.g., professional vs. social), we conducteda group by domain repeated measures ANCOVA, with post hoc within-grouptests of marginal mean differences. This analysis provides us both with anestimate of the differences between the two groups in the mean rankingsof each domain and an estimate of the overall relative ranking of the threedomains for each group.

We ran one-way analyses of covariance, controlling for gender, ethnic-ity, financial struggles, and academic field to examine differences in thedegree to which international and domestic students indicated that theyfelt they received advisor support, had a sense of belonging in their respec-tive departments, and had a positive academic self-concept.

The hypothesized relationships between advisor support, sense of belong-ing, and academic self-concept are presented in Figure 1 (Figure 2 shows thestructural and measurement models specifically tested). Multigroup models(comparing domestic and international students) were estimated using the

Curtin et al.



missing data facility in Amos 19.0, which estimates missing data using full infor-mation maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) and results in unbiased param-eter estimates and appropriate standard errors when data are missing atrandom. We ran three nested alternative models to compare whether they re-sulted in a better model fit than our hypothesized model. We used two indicesto assess fit for all models in the current analyses: the Comparative Fit Index(CFI; Bentler, 1990) and the root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). CFI values above 0.90 are considered toindicate good model fit (Bentler, 1990; Hoyle & Panter, 1995). RMSEA valuesof less than .05 are usually accepted as indicators of good model fit (Browne& Cudeck, 1993). Furthermore, because the x2 statistic is sensitive to samplesize, the relative x2 (or the ratio of x2/degrees of freedom; Carmines &McIver, 1983; Munro, 2005) is also reported. This statistic is sometimes reportedwhen the sample size is large (and the x2 is therefore likely to be significant, aswith our sample) or the hypothesized model is complex. Though there is noexact consensus on cut-offs for interpreting fit using the relative x2, generallya ratio between 1 and 3 is considered to indicate good fit (Arbuckle &Wothke, 1999; Carmines & McIver, 1983; Munro, 2005). Gender, ethnicity, aca-demic division, and current financial situation were included as control varia-bles in our analyses.

Results

Research Question 1: International Versus DomesticDoctoral Student Experiences

A group by domain repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for gender,ethnicity, financial situation, and academic field, was run to compare inter-national and domestic students on how important three areas of the doctoralstudent experience were to them (research-related experiences, professionaldevelopment experiences, and social experiences), as well as to test the

Advisor Support

Respectful

ClimateDown-to-

Earth Climate

PerceivedPerformance

AcademicDiscouragement

Sense ofConfidence

Sense of Belonging


WelcomingClimate

Figure 2. Structural and measurement model tested in AMOS.




hypothesis that there would be no group differences in the rank-order of thedifferent experiences.

The overall test showed significant between group differences across thethree experiences; F = 13.18, p \ .001. Univariate F-tests showed that, ashypothesized, international students rated research-related and professionaldevelopment experiences as significantly more important than domestic stu-dents (see Table 2). Contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant dif-ferences between domestic and international students’ ratings of theimportance of social experiences.

In order to assess whether individuals within the two groups rankedthese three domains differently, we examined within-group differences.Because Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity hadbeen violated, x2(2) = 142.32, p \ .001, degrees of freedom were correctedusing Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (e = .86). There was a significantoverall effect of domain of experience rated, within group, F(1.72) =85.56, p \ .001. As predicted, within-group post hoc comparisons of themarginal means showed that both international students and domestic stu-dents rated research experiences as significantly more important than bothprofessional development and social experiences. Also as expected, profes-sional development experiences were rated as more important than socialexperiences, for both international and domestic students.

Table 2

Graduate School Experiences for Domestic and International Students

Domestic

Students

International

StudentsPartial Eta

M SE M SE F df Squareda

Research-related

experiences

3.50 .02 3.63 .04 9.72** 1, 710 .013

Professional

experiences

2.93 .02 3.29 .05 38.81*** 1, 710 .052

Social experiences 2.38 .03 2.37 .06 0.03 1, 710 .000

Advisor support 2.94 .02 2.98 .05 .47 1,715 .001

Sense of belonging 3.57 .04 3.77 .08 4.32* 1,714 .006

Academic self-concept –.04 .03 .13 .06 6.60** 1,718 .009

Note. F tests the multivariate effect of international versus domestic students witha Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.a.Partial eta squared is the preferred measure of effect size for multifactor ANOVA tests; isthe total variation attributable to a variable, partialling out the effects of other variables(Pierce, Block, & Aguinis, 2004).*p \ .05. **p \ .01. *** p \ .001.

Curtin et al.



Our hypotheses concerning group differences in advisor support, senseof belonging, and academic self-concept between international and domes-tic students were tested using a series of analyses of covariance, controllingfor gender, ethnicity, financial difficulties, and academic field. These hypoth-eses were also partially supported (see Table 2). As hypothesized, comparedto domestic students, international students reported a significantly morepositive sense of academic self. However, contrary to our hypothesis thatthey would report a stronger sense of advisor support, there was no differ-ence between the two groups’ ratings of advisor support. Finally, contrary toour hypothesis that international students would report an overall lowersense of belonging compared to their domestic counterparts, they reporteda significantly stronger sense of belonging in their departments.

In summary, results partially supported our hypotheses related to overalldoctoral student experiences. International students’ mean ratings of theimportance of research and professional development experiences were sig-nificantly higher than domestic students. There were no significant differen-ces on social experiences, although we had expected international studentsto value such experiences less than their domestic counterparts. However,both groups showed the same overall pattern of rankings: Research experi-ences were considered significantly more important than both professionaldevelopment and social experiences, and professional development experi-ences were rated as more important than social experiences.

International students reported significantly stronger academic self-con-cepts, as we expected. However, contrary to our hypotheses, they did notreport more advisor support, and they did report significantly higher levelsof belonging in their departments than domestic students. Thus, the possibil-ity that international students might protect themselves from the negativeconsequences of social isolation by devaluing the social domain of experi-ence appears unlikely on two grounds. They did not rate social experiencesin graduate school as less important than domestic students (though bothgroups rated the professionally relevant experiences as more important).In addition, they reported significantly higher scores on the belonging indi-cator than domestic students, despite their relative isolation from family andperhaps from many doctoral student peers. One possible explanation for thispattern of results is that the sense of overall belonging is less relevant forinternational students than the relationship with one’s advisor, which hasbeen found to be particularly highly valued by international students(Rose, 2005). In our analyses, international students did not rate advisor sup-port higher than domestic students, but that does not tell us whether advisorsupport plays a more important role for them. In the next set of analyses weare able to assess whether both the overall sense of belonging and perceivedsupport from one’s own advisor are equally important in predicting aca-demic self-concept in international and domestic students.




Research Question 2: The Relationship Among Advisor Support, Belonging,

and Academic Self-Concept in International and Domestic Students

We first ran our hypothesized model on the entire sample. The model fitwell (x2 = 132.06, df = 80, p \ .001; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .03; 90% confidenceinterval [CI]: .02, .04; relative x2 = 1.65). Table 3 includes the standardizedcoefficients and significance levels for the structural model and the standard-ized factor loadings for the measurement model. As hypothesized, there wasa significant relationship between advisor support and sense of belonging,for both international and domestic students. There was also a significantrelationship between advisor support and academic self-concept amongboth groups of students. However, while sense of belonging was signifi-cantly related to academic self-concept among domestic students, this path-way was not significant for international students.

There were several significant relationships among our control variablesand our variables of interest, shown in Table 4. Because these variables werenot the focus of our hypotheses, they will not be discussed further.

Alternative Models

We evaluated whether our hypothesized model fit the data better thanthree alternative nested models. To compare our nested models, we exam-ined the difference between our hypothesized model and the nested model

Table 3

Standardized Coefficients and Significance Levels for Structural Model

Standardized Coefficient

Parameter Estimate

Domestic

Students

International

Students

Structural model

Advisor Support �! Sense of Belonging .418*** .571***

Advisor Support �!Academic Self-Concept .436*** .535***

Sense of Belonging �!Academic Self-Concept .300*** .081

Measurement model estimates

Welcoming �! Sense of Belonging .825*** .654***

Respectful �! Sense of Belonging .768*** .829***

Down-to-Earth �! Sense of Belonging .652*** .562***

Confidence �! Academic Self-Concept .670*** .567***

(Lack of) Discouragement �! Academic Self-Concept .537*** .475***

Evaluation of How Doing �! Academic Self-Concept .499*** .473***

Note. x2 = 132.06, df = 80, p\ .001; Comparative Fit Index = .97; root mean square error ofapproximation = .03; 90% confidence interval, 02, .04; relative x2 = 1.65.***p \ .001.

Curtin et al.



using the procedure described by Bollen (1989) and others (e.g., Pedhazur &Schmelkin, 1991). All models included gender, ethnicity, academic division,and financial situation as controls.

The first alternative model eliminated the direct path between advisorsupport and sense of belonging (x2 = 287.96, df = 82, p \ .001; CFI = .90;RMSEA = .06; 90% CI, .05, .06; relative x2 = 3.51). This model was signifi-cantly different from the hypothesized model, Dx2(2) = 155.90, p \ .001,and had poorer fit. Next we tested a nested model that eliminated thepath between advisor support and academic self-concept (x2 = 217.93, df= 82, p \ .001; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .04; 90% CI, .04, .05); relative x2 =

Table 4

Standardized Path Coefficients From Covariate to Variables of Interest

Standardized Coefficient

Parameter Estimate Domestic International

Gendera �! Advisor Support –.101* –.033

Gender �! Sense of Belonging –.071 .071

Gender �!Academic Self-Concept –.078 –.138

Ethnicityb

Asian �! Advisor Support .054 .048

Asian �! Sense of Belonging .002 –.074

Asian �! Academic Self-Concept –.109* –.355***

Black/Hispanic �! Advisor Support .006 .047

Black/Hispanic �! Sense of Belonging –.040 .009

Black/Hispanic �!Academic Self-Concept –.031 –.021

Academic divisionc

Physical Science �! Advisor Support –.040 –.138

Physical Science �! Sense of Belonging –.138* –.207*

Physical Science �!Academic Self-Concept –.036 –.049

Social Science �! Advisor Support –.087 –.191*

Social Science �! Sense of Belonging –.169** –.155

Social Science �! Academic Self-Concept .078 –.034

Humanities �! Advisor Support –.102 –.093

Humanities �! Sense of Belonging –.076 –.267***

Humanities �! Academic Self-Concept .117* –.078

Financial Struggle �! Advisor Support .012 .024

Financial Struggle �! Sense of Belonging –.008 –.125

Financial Struggle �! Academic Self-Concept –.017 .113

a.Reference category = men.b.Reference category = White students.c.Reference category = Division of Biological Sciences.*p \ .05. **p \ .01. ***p \ .001.




2.66). Again, this model was significantly different from the hypothesizedmodel, Dx2(2) = 85.87, p \ .001, and had poorer fit.

Finally, the third alternative model eliminated the paths from belongingto academic self-concept. In this case, given that we hypothesized that therelationship between belonging and academic self-concept would be non-significant for international students, we expected the removal of this pathto have the least negative effect on the model. Indeed, the model fit rela-tively well (x2 = 160.04, df = 82, p \ .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .03; 90%CI, .03, .04; relative x2 = 1.95). This model was significantly different fromour hypothesized model, Dx2(2) = 27.98, p \ .001. However, given thatthis path is significant for domestic students, but not for international stu-dents, this finding should be interpreted as support for our hypothesis.Therefore, we retained our hypothesized model.

In summary, we found that the set of relationships among advisor sup-port, sense of belonging, and academic self-concept was somewhat differentfor domestic and international students. For both domestic and internationaldoctoral students, a positive relationship with their advisor was related bothto a stronger sense of belonging and a more positive academic self-concept.Positive advisor relationships were related both to a sense of one’s self as‘‘fitting in,’’ as well as to a sense of one’s self as ‘‘doing well’’ in academia.However, for domestic students, this sense of fit was also significantly relatedto their sense of doing well; if they did not feel that they fit in, they were lesslikely to feel that they were successful. This was not the case for internationalstudents. Belonging was unrelated to academic self-concept for these stu-dents. Their sense of doing well was related only to advisor support.

Discussion

The current study had two goals: to examine potential differencesbetween international and domestic doctoral student experiences of gradu-ate school and to compare how advisor support and belonging related toacademic self-concept in both groups. In examining these questions, weheld constant a variety of differences between the two groups that are, ofcourse, important. International students were more likely than domesticstudents to study in the physical sciences and engineering, to be male, tobe of Asian background, and were less likely to have financial struggles.We believe all of these variables are important characteristics of doctoral stu-dents that have been and should be studied in terms of their implications foracademic outcomes. For our purposes, though, these differences were statis-tically controlled, so that we could assess whether international status itselfhas important implications, apart from these variables. We note, however,that we could not control for all possible differences between internationaland domestic students. In particular, the two groups may differ in the inten-sity of attachment to or dependence on close social relationships, their level

Curtin et al.



of motivation to succeed, their past academic preparation, and so on, inaddition to the variables we were able to assess.

As expected, compared to their domestic doctoral student peers, inter-national students indicated that both research-related and professional expe-riences were more important aspects of their graduate education than socialexperiences. However, contrary to hypotheses, they were no less likely toindicate that social experiences were significantly more important thandomestic students. These results indicate that international students attachgreater importance to skill development in research and professional-relatedacademic activities than their domestic counterparts but show no differencein their ratings of social experiences. It is not surprising that research expe-riences are considered most important in both groups; the university wherethe data were collected maintains a primary focus on research. Although weexpected international students to place a lower value on their social expe-riences, it is interesting that they valued their social experiences to the same(relatively low) degree as domestic students. As hypothesized, compared todomestic students, international students had significantly higher academicself-concept ratings. However, contrary to our expectations, internationaldoctoral students were not different from their domestic counterparts in rat-ings of advisor support, and they actually reported a stronger sense ofbelonging in their programs or departments. In sum, in two of these threeimportant areas, international students may be having a more positive expe-rience in graduate school than their domestic peers. It may be that becauseinternational students attach more importance to research- and professional-related experiences, they feel they fit in well to the academic environmentdespite their social isolation from peers. Perhaps these two findings for senseof belonging and academic self-concept may help explain why internationalstudents have faster and higher degree completion rates compared todomestic students. We suggest that these findings should be viewed in thecontext of expectations. It may be that international students, who mayalready be more self-selected than domestic students, for a relatively low val-uation of familiar social surroundings, do not expect to fit in socially as muchas domestic doctoral students do. Therefore, their sense of belonging is lesslikely to be contingent on violated expectations of fit. We discuss this notionfurther in the following, in light of the differences between international anddomestic doctoral students in the relationships between advisor support,belonging, and academic self-concept.

The results of our analysis of the relationships among our variables illus-trate the importance of advisors in positively affecting all doctoral students’sense of belonging and academic self-concept. We also showed that the rela-tionship between belonging and academic self-concept was different forinternational versus domestic doctoral students. Advisor support was relatedto both higher levels of sense of belonging in one’s department, as well aspositive academic self-concept for both international and domestic students.




However, for domestic doctoral students, both advisor support and belong-ing were independently associated with academic self-concept. In contrast,for international doctoral students, only advisor support predicted positiveacademic self-concept; sense of belonging was unrelated. As noted earlier,perhaps international students do not expect to feel a sense of belongingto the social community on campus but do feel welcomed into the academicworld represented by their advisors and the department they are in.Belonging is thus irrelevant to their sense of themselves as successful stu-dents. This explanation is supported by qualitative data. The doctoral stu-dents interviewed by Zhai (2004) were relatively unconcerned with socialintegration, though they were quite concerned with their academic success.It may be the case, in contrast, that domestic students expect to have a senseof belonging and social integration within their academic departments.Because of this expectation among domestic students, their sense of belong-ing is connected to perceptions of academic success in ways that are not rel-evant to international doctoral students. Of course, some studies have foundthat a lack of integration is stressful for international students. McClure(2007) and Erichsen and Bolliger (2011) found that social isolation wasa common theme in the cross-cultural adjustment of international doctoralstudents. It is likely that sense of belonging has significant effects in areasof international doctoral students’ lives not captured in the current study.Furthermore, given that many international students do stay in the UnitedStates to pursue careers, it seems worthwhile to understand the role ofbelonging not only during their graduate careers, but beyond. Future studiesmay usefully examine whether intention to remain in the country makes anydifference in the relationships between advisor support, belonging, and aca-demic self-concept for international students.

What is clear from these results is that advisor support is related to doc-toral student perceptions of academic success for all students. The percep-tion that one’s advisor is supportive across a variety of domains isconnected both to a stronger sense of belonging among doctoral studentsas well as to a more positive sense of one’s self as a successful student.Understanding how we can facilitate these positive perceptions (likely basedon positive interactions) is an important next step.

The current study has policy and intervention implications for graduateprograms focused on student well-being and success. Although the doctoralstudents in this sample appeared to feel they are doing quite well in the areaof important academic experiences, we do not think that these findingsshould discount the very real challenges that both quantitative and qualita-tive data have shown international students face. For example, perhapsinternational students are less likely to report negative experiences, com-pared to domestic students, for fear of repercussions. However, this isunlikely in this particular study, since the survey was completely anony-mous. Another explanation may be that international students are more

Curtin et al.



‘‘positive’’ or optimistic in their overall views of their academic experience.Although it is possible that their successful and rapid completion rates areconsistent with this explanation, there is little literature to suggest that thisis the case. Or perhaps, as we suggested previously, the role of expectationsis important in determining doctoral student outcomes. Rose (2005) foundthat international doctoral students were more likely to indicate that havingan advisor relationship based on personality and interpersonal closenesswas important to them. It may be that efforts along these lines result inmore effective perceived relationships. In any case, understanding these re-lationships better will help us to facilitate student success. We found thatinternational students’ feelings of academic self-confidence are not as closelyconnected to their sense of belonging as they are for domestic students. Thisdoes not mean that graduate programs should not be concerned with inter-national students’ sense of belonging; indeed, this sense of fit may be impor-tant for other reasons, such as relieving acculturation stress (Andrade, 2008).However, it may be that programs should focus more intensively on facilitat-ing positive advisor-doctoral student relationships for all students, as our re-sults show that student-advisor relationships are important for students intwo ways: the degree to which they perceive themselves as fitting in withintheir respective departments and the degree to which they consider them-selves successful within their graduate programs. By facilitating more posi-tive relationships between doctoral students and their academic advisors,we can foster student success across multiple domains. Students who feelthat they belong to their department are less likely to leave the academy(Lovitts, 2001), and feeling successful in graduate school is related to pursu-ing a research career in academia (Ostrove et al., 2011). Important next stepsare to understand what constitutes students’ perceptions of positive advisor-student relationships and how institutions can foster these positiveconnections.

In the current study, we did not attempt to examine specific outcomesassociated with the degree to which students attached importance to theirresearch-related, professional development, and social experiences.However, it may be the case that the greater importance the internationalstudents attach to research and professional experiences has implicationsfor their academic and professional success. In contrast, it may be that inter-national students place greater emphasis on these experiences simplybecause they are more aware of the ‘‘costs’’ associated with studying andtraining in a foreign context. Understanding both the origin and consequen-ces of these differences is another important next step.

We note that one key future direction is further qualitative research inthis area. Such an approach would allow us to gain a deeper understandingof these ‘‘lived experiences’’ in both domestic and international students’lives. In particular, such an approach would allow us to understand the spe-cific kinds of advisor-student interactions students interpret as supportive,




versus nonsupportive, as well as the reasons that a sense of belonging playsdifferent roles for international and domestic students. In addition, qualita-tive research might allow us to understand differences among different kindsof international students. For example, does the academic culture in theircountry of origin create particular expectations about the nature of academicwork and success? These expectations could play an important role in creat-ing expectations about what matters when they come to study in the UnitedStates.

We note that this study has limitations in addition to its strengths. Forexample, the measure of belonging we used, though reliable, is fairly indi-rect; our results should be replicated with a more direct indicator. In addi-tion, although it is a strength that we are able to control for a number ofpotentially confounding variables (gender, ethnicity, field of study, andfinancial situation), each of our control variables is inevitably crude. The par-ticular fields within the categories differ, and the specific ethnic originswithin very broad rubrics (White or Caucasian, African, Asian, andHispanic) combine widely differing national and ethnic groups. Becausethe numbers of any particular group were too small (e.g., for particularracial-ethnic groups) within this single institution, or unreported (for partic-ular countries or regions of the world), we were forced to resort to thesecrude categories. Much larger studies of many institutions might permitfiner-grained groups. Equally, studies of the experiences of particular,more narrowly defined groups, and of groups within particular fields, wouldalso be extremely valuable. Similarly, studies of students from particular re-gions or countries might allow us to identify international students who arestruggling in graduate school because of acculturation challenges and tounderstand how best to facilitate positive student-advisor relationships ordevelop students’ sense of belonging. We also note that our sample wasof current doctoral students. We did not include objective measures of suc-cess among such students (e.g., grades) or final outcomes of graduate edu-cation such as time to degree or completion rates. Moreover, our sampleincluded both doctoral students who were relatively junior in their programsand more senior students. Therefore, our focus was on self-perceptions ofacademic success, which are not the same as institutional outcomes.However, we do note that such self-perceptions have been associatedwith objective measures of student academic success (Awad, 2007; Marshet al., 1999), as well as career commitment (Ulku-Steiner et al., 2000)

In addition, this study was based on a single institution, though it iswithin the group (public research institutions) that produces most of thedoctoral degrees earned nationally. Inevitably the specific nature of thatinstitution (large, research oriented, with highly ranked doctoral programs,located in the Midwest, with good funding support for nearly all doctoralstudents) limits the degree to which these results can be generalized to othertypes of institutions. On the other hand, the fact that the data were obtained

Curtin et al.



across many disciplines in a single institution allows us to have more confi-dence that our disciplinary controls are not confounded with institutionalvariables. Thus, for example, we are not looking across institutions thathave different academic profiles (with and without medical and health sci-ence, or engineering, or humanities doctoral programs).

Although there are limitations to the data and results we have presented,they also contribute importantly to our understanding of doctoral studentsuccess. In particular, it may be important to consider similarities and differ-ences between international versus domestic students when trying to under-stand how best to foster students’ academic success. These groups may haveat least some different needs. Further, although acculturation may be a signif-icant challenge for some international students, its overall relevance to theiracademic success may have been overstated. This is not to dismiss that theremay be significant psychological costs associated with this success.However, international students bring significant strengths to their doctoralstudent experiences, and understanding those more fully may allow us towork with both international and domestic students to facilitate increasedsocial and academic well-being for all students in graduate school.

References

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities.Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. doi:10.1177/1475240906065589

Andrade, M. S. (2008). International graduate students: Adjusting to study in theUnited States. In K. A. Tokuno (Ed.), Graduate students in transition (pp. 71–88). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as

socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.Awad, G. H. (2007). The role of racial identity, academic self-concept, and self-

esteem in the prediction of academic outcomes for African American students.Journal of Black Psychology, 33(2), 188–207.

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model ofstudent attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155–187. doi:0361-0365/80/020155-33$01.50

Bell, N. E. (2011). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2000 to 2010. Washington, DC:Council of Graduate Schools.

Bell-Ellison, B., & Dedrick, R. (2008). What do doctoral students value in their idealmentor? Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 555–567. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9085-8

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bieber, J. P., & Worley, L. K. (2006). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate stu-dents’ perspectives, Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1009–1035.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Oxford, England: JohnWiley & Sons.




Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternate ways of testing model fit. In K. A.Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1983). An introduction to the analysis of models withunobserved variables. Political Methodology, 9, 51–102.

Cartwright, G. F. (1972). Student personality orientation and advisor choice. Journalof Educational Research, 66(2), 68–71.

Chellaraj, G., Maskus, K. E., & Mattoo, A. (2008). The contribution of internationalgraduate students to US innovation. Review of International Economics, 16(3),444–462. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9396.2007.00714.x

Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Researchand counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49–65.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Press release: PhD completion rates differ by stu-dent demographic. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24971039/press-release-PhD-Completion-rates-differ-by-demographics.

Cronan-Hillix, T., Gensheimer, L. K., Cronan-Hillix, W. A., & Davidson, W. S. (1986).Students’ views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teaching ofPsychology, 13(3), 123–127. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1303_5

Davis, T. M. (Ed.). (2002). Open Doors 2001/2002: Report on international educa-tional exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Erichsen, E., & Bolliger, D. (2011). Towards understanding international graduate stu-dent isolation in traditional and online environments. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 59, 309–326. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9161-6

Finn, M. G. (2010). Stay rates of foreign doctoral recipients from US universities,2010. Retrieved February 16, 2011, from http://orise.orau.gov/files/sep/stay-rates-foreign-doctorate-recipients-2007.pdf

Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal ofEducation, 25(3), 263–271.

Girves, J. E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degreeprogress. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 163–189.

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral studentattrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education,76(6), 669–700.

Green, S. G. (1991). Professional entry and the advisor relationship. Group &Organization Management, 16(4), 387–407. doi:10.1177/105960119101600404

Hausmann, L., Schofield, J., & Woods, R. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor ofintentions to persist among African American and White first-year college stu-dents. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9

Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students’ views of supervision.Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53.

Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H.Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications(pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of thecampus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociologyof Education, 70, 324–345.

Institute of International Education. (n.d.). Open Doors 2010 fast facts. Retrieved,November 18, 2010, from http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fast-Facts

Curtin et al.



Jacks, P., Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L., & Connolly, T. (1983). The abcs of abds: A studyof incomplete doctorates. Improving College and University Teaching, 31(2), 74–81.

Johnson, J. M., & Regets, M. C. (1998). International mobility of scientists and engi-neers to the United States: Brain drain or brain circulation? (National ScienceFoundation, Issue Brief 98-316). Retrieved February 16, 2011, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib98316.htm

Ku, H.-Y., Lahman, M., Yeh, H.-T., & Cheng, Y.-C. (2008). Into the academy:Preparing and mentoring international doctoral students. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 56(3), 365–377. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9083-0

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success incollege: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive val-idity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specificself-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307–315. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.44.3.307

Lin, J. G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students’ perspectives on cross-cul-tural adaptation. College Student Journal, 31(4), 473–479.

Lindholm, J. A. (2004). Pathways to the professoriate: The role of self, others, andenvironment in shaping academic career aspirations. The Journal of HigherEducation, 75(6), 603–635.

Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notionsof campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review ofHigher Education, 31, 257–285.

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of depar-ture from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Margolis, E., & Romero, M. (1998). ‘‘The department is very male, very White, veryold, and very conservative’’: The functioning of the hidden curriculum in grad-uate sociology departments. Harvard Educational Review, 68(1), 1–32.

Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Yeung, A. S. (1999). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recom-mendations. Educational Psychologist, 34, 155–167. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_2

McClure, J. W. (2007). International graduates’ cross-cultural adjustment:Experiences, coping strategies, and suggested programmatic responses.Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 199–217.

Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia, PA:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Nussbaum, A. D., & Steele, C. M. (2007). Situational disengagement and persistencein the face of adversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 127–134.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.007

Okorocha, E. I. (1996). The international student experience: Expectations and real-ities. Journal of Graduate Education, 2, 80–83.

Ostrove, J. M., Stewart, A. J., & Curtin, N. L. (2011). Social class and belonging:Implications for graduate students’ career aspirations. Journal of HigherEducation, 82(6), 748–774.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: Anintegrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 64(6), 916–924. doi:10.1177/0013164404264848




Quintana, S. M., Vogel, M. C., & Ybarra, V. C. (1991). Meta-analysis of Latino students’adjustment in higher education. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(2),155–168. doi:10.1177/07399863910132003

Rose, G. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal men-tor. Research in Higher Education, 46, 53–80. doi:10.1007/s 11162-004-6289-4

Schram, J. L., & Lauver, P. J. (1988). Alienation in international students. Journal ofCollege Student Development, 29, 146–150.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of con-struct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identityand performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships ingraduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326–341. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1804

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactionswith American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687.

Trice, A. G. (2007). Faculty perspectives regarding graduate international students’isolation from host national students. International Education Journal, 8(1),108–117.

Trice, A. G., & Yoo, J. E. (2007). International graduate students’ perceptions of theiracademic experience. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(1), 41–66. doi:10.1177/1475240907074788

Ulku-Steiner, B., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Kinlaw, C. R. (2000). Doctoral student experien-ces in gender-balanced and male-dominated graduate programs. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 92(2), 296–307. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.296

Weiss, C. S. (1981). The development of professional-role commitment among grad-uate-students. Human Relations, 34(1), 13–31. doi:10.1177/001872678103400102

Zhai, L. (2004). Studying international students: Adjustment issues and social support.Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 11(1), 97–104.

Zhao, C. M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: Howadvisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction.Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263–281. doi:10.1080/03098770701424983

Zimmerman, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence andinternational student adaptation to an American campus. CommunicationEducation, 44, 321–335.

Manuscript received July 28, 2011Final revision received February 12, 2012

Accepted March 19, 2012

Curtin et al.



fostering academic self-concept: advisor support and sense of belonging among international and...

Documents