The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

The Department of Learning and Performance Systems

A MULTI-SITE EMPIRICAL STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT

ADJUSTMENT

A Dissertation in

Adult Education

by

Tom Spencer

© 2017 Tom Spencer

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December, 2017

ii

The dissertation of Tom Spencer was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Esther S. Prins

Associate Professor of Adult Education

Dissertation Advisor

Chair of Committee

Adnan Qayyum

Assistant Professor of Adult Education

Co-Professor-In-Charge, Adult Education

Leticia Oseguera

Associate Professor of Higher Education

Robert W. Schrauf

Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics

Susan M. Land

Associate Professor of Education (Learning, Design, and Technology)

Director of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies, Learning and

Performance Systems

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

Abstract

International student enrollments in U.S. colleges and universities continue to

increase. Entry into an undergraduate or graduate program requires that applicants

demonstrate suitable English language proficiency by means of a standardized test score

such as the Test of English (TOEFL) or the International English Language Tests

(IELTS). Increasingly, international student applicants seek an alternate path to college

admittance in the United States. One option to meet English language admission

requirements are Intensive English Programs (IEPs). These programs, typically located

on college and university campuses, provide English language education for these

hopeful students. Varying in co-curricular support, opportunities to enroll in credit-

bearing courses, academic advising, and social activities, IEPs provide a revenue for their

host institutions; however, less is known about student outcomes. That is, how former

IEP students adjust once they have matriculated to undergraduate or graduate status and

the ways in which IEPs may have contributed to less stressful adjustment.

To demonstrate the utility of IEPs, which are often marginalized within college

and university settings, more evidence of positive student outcomes is needed. Studies

that have examined former IEP student outcomes have typically been single-site studies.

One purpose of the present study was to address this gap in research. Using data collected

from IEP students at 28 colleges and universities across the United States, this study

examined the social and academic adjustment of specific student populations, their

experiences in IEPs, and adjustment to college in their first semester as matriculated

students.

iv

In addition to program advocacy, another goal for this study was advocacy for

international students. In a recent large-scale study, international students reported high

levels of academic and social stress compared to domestic student populations.

Additionally, academic and linguistic under-preparation have increasingly caused

tensions among faculty, administrators, and international students in U.S. colleges and

universities. Due to their particular adjustment challenges, the following populations

were examined: students from China, Saudi Arabia, and adult learners (in this study,

defined as a student satisfying at least one of the following criteria: age [being at least 25

years old], being married, or having significant childcare responsibilities).

Drawing on theories of psychosocial well-being, social and cultural capital, and

language socialization, I examined IEP students’ academic and social adjustment.

Inspired by models of student persistence and retention, I then examined their predictive

power for students’ intent to persist, or graduate from their current institution.

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships

between independent variables and the three outcomes: academic adjustment, social

adjustment, and intent to persist. Results for academic adjustment model (R2 = .372,

F(10, 74) = 2.736, p < .001), and the social adjustment model (R2 = .350, F(11, 80) =

1.806, p < .001) were significant. The intent to persist model was also significant (R2

= .227, F(9, 80) = 2.028, p < .05). The findings of this study suggest that students from

China attend fewer IEP social events than students from other countries, that having a

mentor may contribute to greater academic adjustment; and that the English language

proficiency gained while attending an IEP can contribute to both academic and social

adjustment.

v

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ ix

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1

IEPs and Their Host Institutions ..............................................................................3

Research on IEP Outcomes ......................................................................................4

The Adult Learner ....................................................................................................5

Country of Origin: China and Saudi Arabia ............................................................6

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................8

College models of persistence and retention....................................................8

Adult learners and social adjustment. ..............................................................9

International student adjustment. .....................................................................9

Academic self-efficacy. ..................................................................................10

Social support. ................................................................................................10

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 11

Outline of Study .....................................................................................................12

Chapter 2 INTENSIVE ENGLISH PROGRAMS .....................................................14

Historical Context ..................................................................................................15

Common Program Features ...................................................................................17

IEP Curriculum. .............................................................................................19

Levels of instruction. .....................................................................................21

Trends Affecting Student Enrollment ....................................................................22

Chapter 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................31

International Student Adjustment to College .........................................................33

Academic Adjustment and International Students .................................................34

Academic Adjustment and IEP Students ...............................................................35

Social Adjustment and International Students .......................................................38

Social Adjustment and IEP Students ......................................................................39

Adult International Student Adjustment ................................................................41

Language brokering in immigrant families. ...................................................42

Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................43

International Student Intent to Persist ....................................................................44

Measuring Adult Learner Intent to Persist .............................................................46

Measuring International Student Intent to Persist ..................................................47

Constructs and Concepts ........................................................................................49

Self-efficacy. ..................................................................................................49

Academic self-efficacy. ..................................................................................50

Social support. ................................................................................................51

Capital. ...........................................................................................................52

Socialization. ..................................................................................................53

Number of IEP social events attended ...........................................................61

How social outside of IEP. .............................................................................61

IEP on same campus. .....................................................................................62

Graduate student. ...........................................................................................63

vi

Chapter 4 METHODS ...............................................................................................65

Pilot study ..............................................................................................................66

Sampling rationale and procedures ........................................................................68

Description of the sample ......................................................................................68

Survey measures and scales ...................................................................................70

Course efficacy and social provisions in higher education. ...........................71

Intent to persist. ..............................................................................................78

Average test score. .........................................................................................79

English language gains attributed to IEP. ......................................................80

Procedures ..............................................................................................................83

Participant recruitment. ..................................................................................84

Limitations .............................................................................................................88

Delimitations ..........................................................................................................89

Additional adult learner attributes..................................................................91

Chapter 5 RESULTS ..................................................................................................94

Description of the Sample ......................................................................................95

Sample Scores ........................................................................................................98

Factor Analysis.....................................................................................................100

Exploratory Factor Analysis. .......................................................................102

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ..............................................................................107

Social Provisions Scale (SPS). .....................................................................107

Course Efficacy Scale. .................................................................................108

Chapter 6 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................125

Adult Learner .......................................................................................................127

Findings: Academic Adjustment ..........................................................................128

Findings: Social Adjustment ................................................................................131

Findings: Social and Academic Adjustment as a Predictor of Intent to Persist ...135

Future research .....................................................................................................135

Defining the adult learner ............................................................................136

Orienting international students to the campus. ...........................................137

Institution type, IEP type..............................................................................138

Research design ...........................................................................................138

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................139

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................141

Appendix A Conversion Table for IELTS, TOEFL ibt, and TOEFL pbt Scores .......181

Appendix B Results of English language gains attributed to IEP Factor Analysis ..182

Appendix C Consent to Use the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI) ...............184

Appendix D College Self-Efficacy Inventory with Course Efficacy Items

Identified ..........................................................................................................................185

Appendix E Consent to Use the Social Provisions Scale .........................................186

Appendix F The Social Provisions Scale ..................................................................187

Appendix G Survey for the English Language Gains in IEP Measures ...................189

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Demographic Summary of Participants (N = 90) ............................................ 70

Table 4.3 The Social Adjustment Model for Former IEP Students ................................... 87

Table 4.4 The Intent to Persist Model for Former IEP Students ....................................... 87

Table 5.1 Additional Demographic Information of Study Participants (N = 93) .............. 97

Table 5.2 Means for Model Measures and Measures of Note (N = 93) ............................ 98

Table 5.3 Scores on English Language Gains Attributed to IEP, Course Efficacy, Social

Provisions, and Intent to Graduate for Populations of Interest (N = 93) .......................... 99

Table 5.4 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How Attending an Intensive English

Program Affects Academic Adjustment, Taking Into Account Adult Learner Status and

Country of Origin (China, Saudi Arabia) (N = 90) ..........................................................113

Table 5.5 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How Attending an Intensive English

Program Affects Social Adjustment, Taking into account Adult Learner Status, Gender,

and Country of Origin (China, Saudi Arabia) (N = 90) ...................................................117

Table 5.6 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How Interaction of Academic

Adjustment and Social Adjustment Predict Intent to Persist until Graduating from Current

Institution, Taking into Account Adult Learner Status, Gender, and Country of Origin

(China, Saudi Arabia) (N = 90) ....................................................................................... 122

Table A.1 Conversion Table of IELTS and TOEFL Scores to Create

score_TOEFL_IELTS variable ....................................................................................... 181

Table B.1 Skewness and Kurtosis of English language gains attributed to IEP Data (N =

96) ................................................................................................................................... 182

Table B.2 Parallel Analysis using Minimum Rank Factor Analysis Assuming a One

Factor Solution (N = 96) ................................................................................................. 182

Table B.3 Results of Factor Loadings Assuming a One Factor Solution (N = 96) ........ 183

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Comparison of Intensive English Program (IEP) enrollment trends to

undergraduate graduate (1978–2015). .............................................................................. 24

Figure 2 IEP student enrollments from Iran and Venezuela (1978-79 to 1984-85). ......... 26

Figure 3 IEP student enrollments from China and Saudi Arabia from 2000–2015. ......... 29

Figure 4 Study variables, descriptions, and sample Items ................................................ 83

Figure 5 Items created for the English language gains attributed to IEP scale, organized

by language modality it is intended to measure. ............................................................. 103

Figure C.1 Copy of email authorizing the use of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory .. 184

Figure D.1 Survey items for the College Self-Efficacy Inventory ................................. 185

Figure E.1 Copy of email authorizing the use of the Social Provisions Scale ................ 186

Figure F.1 Survey items and scoring instructions for the Social Provisions Scale ......... 188

Figure G.1 The survey used to collect data for this study .............................................. 199

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my family, thank you for all your support over many years. Thank you for also

fostering in me an insatiable curiosity to learn, and a desire to help others. To Cait and

Jeb, I could not have done this without you. Thank you, Cait, for pushing when it was

needed, and creating a loving, supportive home.

To Dan Merson, Maureen Andrade, Stephanie Scott, Allison Lockard-Valente, and

Jason Litzenberg, and all who provided feedback, instruction, and fresh perspectives, I

am grateful. I would also like to thank the study participants, members of the focus

group, and IEP administrators who helped pass along my survey: Cheryl Delk-Le Good,

Steven Clements, Meg Cooney, Jim Hamrick, Caitlin Hamstra, Beth Lair, Yuri Nagasawa,

and any others I may have missed.

Finally, to Esther Prins who has provided so much feedback and guidance during

this process. To all committee members, Adnan Qayyum, Leticia Oseguera, and Bob

Schrauf, your insights, suggestions, and recommendations, are sincerely appreciated.

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The transition to a university can be a difficult and stressful experience for

students. This process is often especially difficult for international students. Isolation,

homesickness, and racism, as well as linguistic and cultural difficulties and different

academic expectations, all combine to complicate the types of support that international

students might need to help them successfully adjust (Andrade, 2005; Case, 2004; Lee &

Rice, 2007; Trice, 2004). For the adult learner pursuing a college degree in a foreign-

language setting, demands such as caregiving, familial, and financial responsibilities may

add to the aforementioned stressors (De Verthelyi, 1995; Perrucci & Hu, 1995; Poyrazli

& Kavanaugh, 2006; Wu & Wu, 2015). The purpose of the present study is to examine

the potential relationship between attending an English-language preparatory program on

a college campus in the United States, and the subsequent social and academic

adjustment process to college for international, non-native English-speaking adult

learners.

Trends in enrollment at colleges and universities in the U.S. suggest that the

number of international students continues to increase. In 2015–16, the population of

international students enrolled in U.S. universities reached an all-time high of 1,043,839,

an increase of 7.1% from the previous year. A subset of this population is non-degree

seeking students, many of whom study in Intensive English Programs (IEPs). The total

number of students studying in IEPs in the United States in 2015–16 was 39,444

2

(Redden, 2016). The students who attend these IEPs and their subsequent adjustment

experiences as matriculated college students are the focus of this study.

IEPs are one means of access to college for international students. They provide

students the opportunity to learn English in an accelerated format, develop greater

knowledge about the academic culture in the United States, and prepare for standardized

tests designed to gauge proficiency in English, such as the Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL).1 Little is known, however, about the exact nature of IEPs and the

IEPs’ effects on preparing students for college. Existing studies tend to be single-site

(Heitner, Hoekje, & Braciszewski, 2014; Selz, 2014; South, 1992) or qualitative (Case,

2004; Winkle, 2013).

The present study addresses this gap in the literature by quantitatively examining

students’ experiences in IEPs across multiple sites and considering how these experiences

may be related to students’ subsequent social and academic adjustment experiences in

college. The study’s findings can help college staff members and administrators learn

which dimensions of IEPs are most strongly related to students’ college adjustment,

better understand the needs of international students who have attended IEPs, and

1The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is a standardized test of English-language

proficiency accepted at over 9,000 postsecondary institutions globally (https://www.ets.org/toefl).

The test is currently administered by the Education Testing Service (ETS) and was originally

developed to assess language proficiency related to the skills necessary for success at an English-

language college or university (Taylor & Angelis, 2008, p. 29). Originally a paper-based test

(TOEFL pbt), the TOEFL is now an Internet-administered test (TOEFL ibt). However, the

TOEFL pbt is still available in places in which Internet access is not readily available. The

present study focused on the Institutional TOEFL (Institutional TOEFL pbt), the original paper-

based test that is used for admission exclusively at the particular site offering the test. Although

data regarding which programs and institutions use the Institutional TOEFL pbt are currently

unavailable, anecdotally speaking, there are at least 20 IEPs that do.

3

determine how to make the college transition less stressful for international students.

Given anticipated differences in student experiences based on age, this study pays

particular attention to adult learners, or those students who are 25 years or older and have

significant responsibilities outside of the classroom, such as caregiving, familial, and

financial obligations. Non-adult learners are 18–24 years old and do not typically have

the same level of external demands placed on them as do adult learners.

IEPs and Their Host Institutions

For more than 60 years, IEPs in the United States have served the English-

language needs of international students hoping to study in U.S. undergraduate and

graduate programs (Morley, Wallace Robinett, Selinker, & Woods, 1984; Moulton, 1963).

Although no single IEP model exists, most share common characteristics. First, IEPs

offer non-credit courses in English that cover the language skills of reading, writing,

grammar, listening, and speaking. This language curriculum is designed to prepare

students for subsequent college coursework. Second, IEP students are typically at least 18

years old or have completed high school. Third, IEP students study approximately 20

hours per week, a schedule that satisfies visa requirements for full-time study. Fourth,

across programs, IEP student enrollments fluctuate more widely and rapidly than do

international undergraduate or graduate student enrollments.

IEPs exist in many countries; however, only students who attended IEPs located

on college campuses in the United States were surveyed in this study. One benefit of

attending a campus-based IEP is that it typically provides a path to undergraduate or

graduate study at the host institution: in other words, a means to demonstrate the English-

language proficiency needed for admission without having attained a satisfactory

4

English-language proficiency score on a test such as the TOEFL or the International

English Language Test System (IELTS) (Dimmitt & Dantas-Whitney, 2002;

Dehghanpisheh, 1987; Jensen & Hansen, 2003). This study examines IEP students’

linguistic, social, and academic experiences. Chapter 2 provides detailed background

information about IEP programs.

Research on IEP Outcomes

Research on IEPs and their usefulness for international students often focuses on

the outcomes of English-language gains and subsequent academic adjustment to college.

There is scant research on the relationships between the non-linguistic, non-academic

components of IEPs and student adjustment to college. A few studies have described

IEPs’ non-academic aspects, including assistance with social and cultural adjustment and

orientation to the resources available on U.S. college campuses (Fox, Cheng, & Zumbo,

2014; Selz, 2015). Publicly available resources from the IEP professional community

detail non-curricular components found within most campus-based IEPs (Dimmit &

Dantas-Whitney, 2002; Hamrick, 2012; Steen & De Angelis, 1997). These include cross-

cultural and personal counseling, social events such as field trips, conversation partner

opportunities, homestay opportunities, and recreational activities.

Research suggests that standardized tests of English proficiency (i.e., TOEFL or

IELTS), which are designed to measure linguistic readiness for college, are inadequate

for measuring or predicting social adjustment (Hirsch, 2007; Ying & Liese, 1990). IEPs

have been identified as a resource that can facilitate more comprehensive preparation for

college (Hirsch, 2007). The current study examines former IEP students’ intent to

graduate, also known as their intent to persist at their current colleges until graduation.

5

Drawing on college impact models from higher education studies, I argue that academic

and social adjustment are essential components of a student’s intent to persist until

graduation. For this reason, both the social and the academic adjustment experiences of

former IEP students are examined.

The Adult Learner

Because this study examines the experiences of adult learners, it is useful to

differentiate between the lay definition of adult and its use in this study. Herein, the term

adult reflects a particular definition drawn from adult education literature. The principal

difference between the popular and the discipline-specific meanings of adult is the

importance of age. In the United States, the age of maturity for almost every state is 18.

This means once an individual is 18, he or she has legal independence to make specific

life decisions and assume responsibilities, legal or otherwise, that were previously the

province of parents or guardians. Because the majority of college students are at least 18

years old, they are considered adults.

Age frequently appears as a determinant of who counts as an adult in adult

education and lifelong learning literature. The lower threshold for adult status is often 24

or 25 (Castles, 2004; Hardin, 2008; Kasworm & Pike, 1994). However, chronological age

is often in and of itself insufficient. In this study, an adult is someone with significant life

experience (e.g., who has held a full-time job and has life experience accumulated by dint

of age; Kasworm & Pike, 1994; Syverson, 1994) and may have certain commitments or

responsibilities such as raising a child or children or being a partner in a marriage (Bean

& Metzner, 1985; Gardner & Gopaul, 2012). In the context of attending college, the adult

is seen as balancing these multiple roles with his or her obligations as a student. There is

6

an implication of difference: the adult learner is not in the same stage of life as his or her

college cohort. Because colleges in the United States have historically catered to recent

high school graduates who often do not have the responsibilities that come with

adulthood, adult learners are vulnerable to feeling marginalized, out of place,

underappreciated, and dissatisfied.

Adult learners’ difficulties adjusting to college have received some scholarly

attention; however, less is known about how adjustment experiences differ for an

international population. Language mediates daily interactions, and a sufficient command

of the dominant language affords an individual greater ability to (a) navigate and

participate in these interactions and (b) present oneself as competent and comprehensible.

As such, a goal of this study is to examine the international adult learner (Duff, 2010;

Gee, 2004; Gherardi, Nicolini, & Odella, 1998; Morita, 2004; Norton Pierce, 1995). Do

the added dimensions of language proficiency and IEP experience contribute to greater or

weaker adjustment for adult learners compared to non-adult learners? In contrast to other

adult learning experiences, learning a second language can affect multiple, perhaps even

the majority, of areas in an individual’s life, influencing aspects such as parenting and

self-presentation. Adult second-language learning, or acquisition, is discussed in greater

detail in Chapter 3.

Country of Origin: China and Saudi Arabia

Although IEPs include students from many countries, the two populations of

interest for this study are Chinese and Saudi nationals. Both populations have been well

represented in IEPs over the past several years. Saudi Arabia has sent more students to

IEPs over the past five years than any other country (Redden, 2016). Saudi nationals have

7

been the subject of several studies on IEPs and post-IEP adjustment to college (Caldwell,

2013; Hall, 2013; Sandekian & Weddington, 2015). Chinese students at U.S. colleges

have also been a popular subject for researchers examining adjustment at the

undergraduate and graduate levels (Hurny, 2007; Kwon, 2009; Lee, 2014; Wang, 2012).

In the present study, students from Saudi Arabia are a population of interest due to

the academic difficulties they encounter as matriculated college students, for example, on

reading tasks and writing tasks. In consideration of the adult learner, reports on Saudi

women suggest that balancing course work with being their children’s primary caregiver

can contribute to social isolation and stress (Leggett, 2013; Winters, 2013).

Students from China who have attended an IEP are also a population of interest in

this study. Chinese undergraduate and graduate students in the U.S. often socialize more

with co-nationals (students from the same country) and the least amount of time

socializing with host-nationals (students from the United States) than any other national

group (Chang & Kanno, 2010; Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood, 2013). Although views

differ on the effects of socializing only with co-national students, the level of social

support Chinese students receive, regardless of the provider’s home country, is of interest.

In this study, social support buffers against stress and enhances academic success

outcomes (e.g., GPA). The voluminous body of research on Chinese student adjustment

to college in the United States, the lack of friendships these students form with students

from the United States, and the relationship between social adjustment and academic

adjustment—the focus of this study—make this cohort a population of interest.

Despite scant research on students’ social experiences in IEPs and their

subsequent adjustment to undergraduate and graduate contexts, studies have indicated

8

that bonds of friendship persist and help to form at least a part of an international

student’s social and academic support group (Case, 2004).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is situated within literature from higher

education (predictive models of college student experience, adjustment, and intent to

persist until graduation); adult education (the experiences of adult learners in college

contexts and advocacy for the learners’ inclusion); second-language acquisition (second-

language socialization and the relationship between language and identity); and

psychology (social support as a buffer against stress, thereby promoting greater social

adjustment during life transitions, and the perceived ability to complete academic tasks

successfully as an index of academic adjustment). A thorough description of this

framework is provided in the third chapter; however, below is a description of the

framework’s most salient concepts.

College models of persistence and retention. This study did not test any of the

existing persistence or retention models on understudied populations (e.g., Museus’

Culturally Engaging Campus Environments). However, this study draws on the work of

several researchers who have observed the role social and academic adjustment play as

predictors of intent to persist until graduation (Astin, 1985; Bean & Eaton, 1995; Nora &

Cabrera, 1996; Museus, 2014; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Terenzini & Reason, 2005;

Tinto, 1975, 1993). Tinto’s (1975) Student Impact Model was a reference point for the

present study, not simply because the model has been so thoroughly investigated, but

because responses to Tinto’s work have inspired significant theory-building and

expansion relevant to international adult learners who have attended IEPs (Andrade,

9

2006; Attinasi, 1989; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Donaldson & Graham, 1989;

Mamiseishvili, 2012; Museus & Quaye, 2009). Tinto’s model and related studies provide

a framework for incorporating the theories and concepts used in this study.

Adult learners and social adjustment. For adult learners, involvement with the

social world of a college campus tends to be less important than it is for non-adult

learners (Bean & Metzner, 1985, Chartrand, 1990, 1992; Donaldson & Graham, 1999;

Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011; Kasworm, Polson, & Fishback, 2002; Kasworm, 2003). In

this study, an adult learner is defined as someone who satisfies any or all of the following

criteria: He or she (a) is at least 25 years old, (b) is married, and (c) has caregiving

responsibilities such as raising a child. The supportive roles played by family members

and others were incorporated into this study to account for types of social support found

beyond the campus. Social support has been shown to have positive effects across

demographic boundaries (e.g., Bean & Metzner, 1985; Nora, 2001; Ramsay, Jones, &

Barker, 2007).

International student adjustment. Adjustment is often more difficult for

learners with the wrong sort of cultural capital and limited access to social capital that

could help lay bare the implicit rules of speech and interaction within a community (Abe,

Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Attinasi, 1989; Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu/Passeron 1986;

Coleman, 1988; Nora & Crisp, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1995, 1997).

Academic and social adjustment experiences are important for international

students; however, the relationship between adjustment and intent to persist, as found in

theories of persistence and retention, has received little scholarly attention (Andrade,

2006, 2009; Mamiseishvili, 2012; Smith, 2015). To better understand the role of language

10

in adjustment to college and intent to persist until graduation, theories of second-

language acquisition (Duff, 2015; Kinginger, 2013; Morita, 2000) and theories of cultural

and social capital (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986; Coleman, 1988; McCoy &

Winkle-Wagner, 2015; Museus, 2014) are drawn upon and presented as processes that

facilitate or inhibit academic adjustment and social adjustment.

Academic and social adjustment experiences are important for international

students; however, the relationship between adjustment and intent to persist, as found in

theories of persistence and retention, has received little scholarly attention (Andrade,

2006, 2009; Mamiseishvili, 2012; Smith, 2015). To better understand the role of language

in adjustment to college and intent to persist until graduation from the same institution,

theories of second-language acquisition (Duff, 2015; Kinginger, 2013; Morita, 2000) and

theories of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986;

Coleman, 1988; McCoy & Winkle-Wagner, 2015; Museus, 2014) are drawn upon and

presented as processes that facilitate or inhibit academic adjustment and social

adjustment.

Academic self-efficacy. In this study, academic adjustment to college was

examined through the psychological construct of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the degree

to which an individual believes he or she has the resources to complete a specific task

(Bandura, 1977). Academic self-efficacy was operationalized in this study to focus on

those tasks most common to college, such as writing a research paper or taking notes

during a lecture.

Social support. In this study, social adjustment was considered a facet of

adjustment to college. In particular, social adjustment was acknowledged as a stressful

11

event or events that may be buffered by social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social

support may come from various individuals—family members, faculty, peers—who

provide the following types of support: attachment, social integration, reassurance of

worth, reliable alliance, and guidance. This work is grounded in the theory that there are

separate domains across which people can provide social support, as shown by Weiss

(1974). In this study, only the first five dimensions of social support were measured.

Research Questions

This study examines the transition experiences of international undergraduate and

graduate students who are currently enrolled in U.S. colleges and who have attended U.S.

IEPs. The study addresses the following questions:

1. What is the relationship between international students’ academic

experiences in IEPs and their academic adjustment as matriculated college

students?

2. What is the relationship between international students’ social experiences

in IEPs and their social adjustment as matriculated college students?

3. What is the relationship between international students’ IEP experiences,

their social and academic adjustment as matriculated college students, and

their intent to graduate from their respective colleges?

Academic and social adjustment experiences have received significant attention

from scholars in higher education (e.g., Astin, 1984, 1985; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Nora

& Cabrera, 1996; Spady, 1970, 1971; Terenzini & Reason, 2005; Tinto, 1975, 1993).

Generally speaking, such experiences have been considered components of a larger

12

system of experiences, attributes, and attitudes that has been created to better understand,

and develop interventions for, student departure from college.

Although enrollments of international students continue to increase, concern for

international students’ experiences in U.S. colleges remains low (Craig, 2017).

Contributing to the difficulties of adjustment are complacency toward the mental health

concerns of international students and an indifference toward their readiness to participate

successfully in English-medium college courses. Additionally, the current anti-

immigration, isolationist attitude, endorsed at a national level, may contribute to an

unwelcoming environment for international students. This study advocates for the needs

of international students in general and particularly for those in IEPs. The goal of this

study is to shed light on the linguistic, academic, and social benefits of attending an IEP

by examining the adjustment experiences of matriculated international students. An IEP

is a site where language proficiency can develop, as can a familiarity with academic

culture in the United States. IEPs may also facilitate opportunities for students to expand

their social network, contributing to a system of social support that can help international

students cope with the stress of adjustment.

Outline of Study

The remaining chapters are organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides an overview

of IEPs, including their historical development, defining features of their students and

curricula, and trends in student enrollments. Chapter 3 reviews the literature pertinent to

this study, drawing upon studies from adult education, higher education, SLA, and

psychology. Chapter 4 describes the methods used to examine the phenomenon of

international adult learners’ social and academic adjustment experiences to college after

13

attending IEPs and the potential relationship between adjustment and intent to persist

until graduation from the same institution. This includes instrument development,

information about the pilot study, instrument modifications, assumptions, delimitations,

data collection, and the survey results. The results are presented in Chapter 5, and

Chapter 6 discusses the results, including their application for IEP administrators and

areas for future research.

14

Chapter 2

INTENSIVE ENGLISH PROGRAMS

Political circumstances in the early 1940s contributed to the rapid development

and expansion of English-language education in the United States (Kaplan, 1997;

Matsuda, 1999; Morley, Wallace Robinett, Selinker, & Woods, 1984). This expansion

included the establishment of intensive English language programs (IEPs) (Barrett,

1982). These language programs ultimately proved themselves to be catalysts of change,

serving as a collective testing ground for emerging theories on innovative teaching

methods (Dimmitt & Dantas-Whitney, 2002; Morley, Wallace Robinett, Selinker, &

Woods, 1984).

Various specific events gave rise to the first IEP, which was the influential English

Language Institute (ELI) at the University of Michigan. Modern IEPs, and particularly

those located on U.S. college campuses, can trace their lineage to this program. Yet

although this landmark program helped shape the features of many contemporary IEPs

(i.e., program location, faculty, research on language pedagogy), the early development

of IEPs advanced without a centralized authority to establish guidelines and standards

(Fry, 1986; Goodwin & Nacht, 1983; Kaplan, 1997). This lack of guidance, combined

with the rapid influx of international students to colleges in the United States in the 1950s

and 1960s, contributed to the diversity of program structures, curricula, and program

administration among IEP programs seen today (Staczek & Carkin, 1985).

IEPs today are also the result of coordinated efforts in the latter half of the

twentieth century to bring a sense of cohesion and professionalism to English-language

15

teaching. Indeed, present-day IEPs are indebted not only to pioneering programs of

English-language instruction such as the ELI, but also to the advocacy efforts of IEP

administrators and broader professional organizations.

Historical Context

In 1933, then-president Franklin Roosevelt established the “Good Neighbor

Policy” to strengthen relationships between the United States and various Latin American

countries and to counter the spread of European political ideology to Latin America

(Kaplan, 1997; Morley, Wallace Robinett, Selinker, & Woods, 1984). By the late 1940s,

however, the accelerated establishment of German-language education programs in Latin

America had begun to cause concern. To counter the spread of German linguistic and

cultural influence, the United States channeled its energy and resources into developing

English as a foreign language (EFL) education initiatives (Kramsch, 2007). A principle

concern of these initiatives was determining methods for teaching English to non-native

speakers effectively and efficiently, an issue that had received scant attention previously.

Two academics, Charles C. Fries and his colleague Robert Lado, had already been

researching foreign language pedagogy. Both scholars were working at the University of

Michigan when funding opportunities for language teaching research arose. After

securing government grants and private donations, Fries established the aforementioned

ELI at the University of Michigan with himself as leader. Lado succeeded Fries as leader

of the ELI (Kaplan, 1997; Matsuda, 1999).

The first course at the ELI was not for students who hoped to improve their

English proficiency in preparation for enrolling in U.S colleges; rather, it was for

professionals—doctors, engineers, psychologists—from Latin America. However,

16

immediately following the success of this trial English-language program, the ELI began

to welcome a younger, college-going demographic (Morley, Wallace Robinett, Selinker,

& Woods 1984).

It is with this younger audience that the IEP as it is known today first emerged.

These formative, lasting features of IEP programming include (a) an affiliation with a

university department; (b) a setting to observe and analyze language pedagogy; (c) the

inclusion of social and cultural experiences within the curriculum and special program-

sponsored events; (d) a site for teacher development (graduate assistants from the

affiliated department teaching IEP classes); (e) a core curriculum including aural

(listening/speaking), reading, writing, and grammar skills; and (f) a schedule that is either

short-term (usually summer) or aligned with the host institution’s academic calendar

(Barrett, 1982; Kaplan, 1971; Dimmitt & Dantas-Whitney, 2002).

Other notable pioneering language programs were established shortly after the

ELI. Some of these were started by ELI alumni hoping to carry the spirit of their alma

mater forward (Morley, Wallace Robinett, Selinker, & Woods, 1984). However, changing

campus demographics favoring an international population of students precipitated

language policies less rooted in theory or experience. Robert Kaplan (1997) describes the

international student boom accordingly:

As international students began to undertake study in U.S. institutions after

the end of World War II, specific and unique needs surfaced and immediate

responses to those needs were implemented. By 1953, some 150 U.S.

institutions had some sort of ESL program for international students. (p. 4)

17

Due to the dramatic increase in the international student population in the United States

following World War II, university administrators scrambled to meet their international

students’ English-language learning needs. As a result, intensive language programs,

which later became known as IEPs, were often hastily established on university

campuses. Often lacking the principled and ethical approaches of the ELI, many of these

programs were staffed by volunteers, and courses were given credit-bearing status, with

some of the courses even combined with “remedial” programs at the IEPs’ corresponding

colleges. The decision to place international students in classes with native English

speakers lacking basic literacy skills is representative of some of the ill-informed

language program decisions of the 1960s and early 1970s (Bennett, 1996; Fry, 1986;

Goodwin & Nacht, 1983; Kaplan, 1997).

To establish professional and ethical guidelines for IEPs, thereby engendering

legitimacy, groups such as the University and College IEP (UCIEP) consortium were

created (“UCIEP History,” n.d.). Further bolstering the legitimacy of IEPs were

accrediting bodies such as the Commission on English Language Education (CEA),

which issued standards such as regular self-study and external evaluation for IEPs to

follow (Kaplan, 1997; Szasz, 2010). The next section summarizes commonalities and

differences in the features and functions of IEPs, focusing particularly on those most

relevant to this study.

Common Program Features

At one extreme, an accredited IEP may follow an independent proprietary model,

appealing to tourists seeking a one-to-two-week general English-language experience. At

the other end of the continuum is the historic language program model, attracting students

18

seeking to learn English for academic purposes and staffed with faculty involved in

research and language policy advocacy. Though the descriptor “IEP” can be applied

broadly, in this study, it refers to students who are—or aspire to be—matriculated

undergraduate or graduate students in the United States after completing campus-based

IEPs (Staczek & Carkin, 1985). As Douglas (2003) articulates, “Academic readiness,

however defined, continues to be the main organizing principle for IEP curriculum, focus

and design, and for program completion” (p. 108). The IEPs in this study are all campus-

based programs. This importance of this setting is discussed in the following chapter.

Campus-based IEPs have no designated home within academic departments or

programs, though they often fall under the purview of departments such as English or

applied linguistics or special offices such as those of continuing education, student

affairs, outreach, or international student services (Grosse & Lubell, 1984; Hamrick,

2012). An IEP may be governed by a college or university, an independent (private)

program, or a proprietary program that works in collaboration with a college or

university. It may be located on or off of a college campus and may be a single-site or

multi-site program (Choudaha, 2017).

Students who attend campus-based IEPs take English-language courses that do

not carry college credit. They are often designated as “non-degree seeking” students

(Choudaha, 2017; Staczek & Carkin, 1985). There are two notable exceptions: (1) bridge

programs that may permit students to take a limited number of credit classes as non-

matriculated students (Schmiegel, 2017) and (2) pathways programs. Pathway programs

are proprietary language programs that are operated in coordination with colleges or

universities (Choudaha, 2017; Schmiegel, 2017). In the pathway model, students receive

19

conditional admission (also known as a foundation year) to a college or a network of

colleges. Unlike students in bridge programs, those who study in pathways programs

receive credit for all of their IEP coursework (Crawley, 2017; Schmiegel, 2017).

IEP Curriculum. IEP students do not meet the standardized test requirements for

English-language proficiency as set by the colleges and universities they hope to attend

(Barrett, 1982; Friedenberg, 2002; Kaplan, 1971, 1997). Consequently, IEP coursework

promotes the development of English-language proficiency that is needed for academic

success at U.S. colleges and universities (Dimmitt & Dantas-Whitney, 2002; Friedenberg,

2002, 2009). This includes coursework in the modalities of listening, speaking, reading,

and writing and may cover skills such as scanning a text for its main idea, taking lecture

notes, or giving a presentation. Unless an IEP has an agreement with its host institution

whereby a student can demonstrate his or her proficiency in another manner (such as

completing the most advanced language courses offered by the institution), a student

needs to achieve a minimum English-language proficiency test score to matriculate

(Friedenberg, 2002; Schmiegel, 2017). To help students meet this requirement, IEPs often

offer preparatory courses for standardized tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL) or the International English Language Test System (IELTS).

However, IEP students are not a homogenous group. Not all students enrolled in

IEPs hope to matriculate to English-medium higher education institutions (Barrett, 1982;

Hamrick, 2012). Students who modify their plans after starting their IEP programs, or

those whom Powell (2001) dubs “accidental learners,” begin studying English for general

purposes such as personal enrichment but come to develop an interest in studying at a

U.S. college or university. This is a phenomenon I have observed in my own experience

20

as a teacher and student advisor. Most often I have found that these accidental learners

are married. These students may or may not have F2 or “dependent” status and usually

enroll in the IEP because their spouses are studying there or have matriculated at the host

institution. In the cases I have seen, “accidental students” include both men and women.

This section ends with an overview of specialty programs in IEPs. These courses

of study are not found in all on-campus IEPs, but their inclusion provides a broader view

of the curricula possible (Grosse & Lubell, 1984; Kaplan, 1997). Notable examples

include:

professional development (e.g., English for lawyers, medical professionals, police

officers);

English-language teachers in other countries as part of ongoing professional

development; and

refugees as part of a pre-sessional (i.e., summer bridge) college preparatory

course. (Most often these refugee students do not need to take a standardized

English proficiency test.)

The course length at a campus-based IEP usually aligns with that of the host institution

(e.g., eight-week quarters, fifteen-week semesters) (Hamrick, 2012; Kaplan, 1997).

However, a term can be as short as four weeks, particularly if the course targets a specific

population for a particular purpose.

Studies suggest that students may spend longer than a year in an IEP before

matriculating to undergraduate or graduate study (Friedenberg, 2002; Reid, 1987). A

notable exception are students who receive financial support from a government office to

study in an IEP. In these circumstances, a student may have less than a year of English-

language study before he or she is expected to matriculate to undergraduate or graduate

status. For Kuwaiti students, financial support cannot exceed one year of IEP study

(“Ministry of Higher Education,” n.d.); Brazilian students funded by the Brazilian

21

Science Mobility Project (BSMP) must matriculate after one semester of IEP study

(“Student Handbook: 2014-2015,” 2014). Although financial resources often determine a

student’s length of IEP study, another contributing factor is a student’s English-language

proficiency upon enrollment in the IEP, as discussed below.

Levels of instruction. Students often arrive with very limited English proficiency,

compounding the difficulty of preparing for an English-medium university experience in

a limited time frame (Aitken & Browning, 2015). IEP levels range from beginner to

advanced; in accredited programs, however, there must be at least four levels of

instruction (“CEA Standards,” n.d.). In a four-level program organized into a fifteen-

week program of study, a student who begins with the most introductory level may need

more than one attempt to progress to a more advanced level and several more semesters

to reach level four. Dissatisfaction with one’s current IEP can contribute to program

transfer. Since there is no research on this topic, we do not know how many or what

percentage of students transfer between IEPs. However, in my professional experience

advising students at an IEP of approximately 200 students annually, I have seen several

transfer-ins (students entering my institution’s program from different IEPs) and transfer-

outs (students exiting the program to attend different IEPs) each semester. One challenge

of receiving a transfer student is level placement. After taking the IEP’s placement test,

the student may be shocked to learn that he or she is now in a lower level of instruction

than that of the previous program. This may be attributed to (a) the lack of a standardized

curriculum across IEPs, (b) inconsistency in the linguistic content that is taught and

assessed at various levels, (c) the absence of a universal threshold for passing students to

22

higher levels, (d) variations in course length, and (d) only general minimum requirements

for how many levels a program should have.

In addition to individual reasons for program exit, national (within the United

States) and international conditions and events dramatically shape IEP enrollments. I

discuss some of these issues below in relation to IEP enrollment trends over time.

Trends Affecting Student Enrollment

Founded in 1919, the Institute of International Education (IIE) has played a vital

role in promoting international education experiences for adult students (Bevis, 2007).

IIE’s advocacy and research is especially directed toward students from the United States

studying abroad and international students studying in the United States. Since 1959, the

IIE has published data on international education in its annual Open Doors Report

(Dunnett, 2017). Beginning in 1978, it undertook systematic and large-scale data

collection. The general features of the IEP survey have remained largely the same since

1978 except for a change in when annual data are determined for IEP enrollments. Before

2000, IEP data were collected and reported using the academic calendar—much the same

as data on undergraduate and graduate international students. Beginning in 2000,

however, IEP enrollment data switched from an academic year report to a calendar year

report. A reason for this change could not be located in the existing literature. One

possible explanation is that IEP students participate throughout the year and the inclusion

of summer program data better reflects enrollments over time.

Analyzed over time, the IIE surveys provide the most comprehensive

demographic data on IEP program characteristics and IEP students currently available.

Figure 1 shows enrollment trends from 1980–2015 using Open Doors Reports data. The

23

data illustrate the volatile nature of IEP enrollment compared with international

undergraduate and graduate enrollments in the United States over the past 35 years. The

range of change in enrollment for IEP populations over these years is -34.82% to 52.48%

(M = 5.54, SD = 18.06), whereas for undergraduate and graduate students it is -5.05% to

10.89% (M = 2.69, SD = 4.41) and -4.62 to 11.01 (M = 4.19, SD = 3.84), respectively.

This shows that compared to students in credit programs, IEP student enrollment is more

volatile and has a larger median annual increase. Explanations for these dramatic changes

in IEP enrollments are discussed below.

24

Figure 1 Comparison of Intensive English Program (IEP) enrollment trends to undergraduate

graduate (1978–2015)2.

25

IEP enrollments are shaped by conditions and events both domestic and

international. Domestic factors include the strength of the U.S. dollar, changes in visa

regulations, and attitudes of isolationism or hostility toward people from other countries.

External influences, on the other hand, include oil imports and exports, political

(in)stability, the interdependence or independence of global markets, and changes in

foreign countries’ visa regulations (Dunnett, 2017; Powell, 2001).

An illuminating example of how political instability can affect IEP enrollment is

the Iranian Revolution (1978–1980). The immediate impact of this regime change had

little effect on Iranian undergraduate and graduate study in the United States; it did,

however, lead to travel restrictions for IEP students (Powell, 2001; Thackaberry & Liston,

1986). Although Iranian students returned to IEPs a few years later, Iran never regained

its position as the top sending country. Rather, Iran’s position was surpassed the

following year by Venezuela.

Latin American countries such as Colombia and Venezuela and oil-rich countries

in the Middle East have sent significant numbers of students to IEPs. For example,

Venezuelan students constituted the largest IEP student population from 1979–1982

(Davis, 1997; Edgerton, 1982; Powell, 2001). However, this spike in Venezuelan

enrollment in IEPs was followed by a precipitous decline. Interrelated global and local

phenomena such as the oil glut of the 1980s and the devaluation of the bolivar coincided

with a dramatic decrease in Venezuelans studying IEPs (Looney, 1986). Figure 2

2 IEP student enrollment data before the year 2000 reflects academic year enrollments.

Enrollments after 2000 reflect calendar year enrollments (January to December).

26

illustrates the rapid rise and fall of IEP enrollments for Venezuelan and Iranian students

between the 1978–1979 and 1984–1985 academic years. Regarding Iranian student

enrollments, it is useful to note that data on IEP enrollments before 1978 do not exist on a

national scale. Additionally, early data collection on IEP enrollments in the United States

focused only on the top ten sending countries. Consequently, enrollment statistics do not

exist for Iranian nationals after the 1980-1981 academic year. Enrollment data for this

student population resumes in the 1985-1986 academic year and continues to the present.

Since their reemergence, however, Iranian student enrollments in IEPs have never

exceeded 900 students.

Figure 2 IEP student enrollments from Iran and Venezuela (1978-79 to 1984-85).

Throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s, students from Japan led all other

countries in IEP enrollment. Currently, Japanese students still constitute a sizable

27

percentage of IEP enrollments (8.4% in 2014, the fourth-largest enrollment; Farrugia, &

Bhandari, 2015). Other East Asian countries, specifically Korea, Taiwan, and China, have

been strongly represented in IEP enrollment during the past 36 years. With the exception

of 1978–79, the top two sending countries have always included at least one of the

following countries: Japan, China, and Korea. In fact, Korea and Japan were ranked first

and second in 18 different years, with Japan most frequently ranked first. However,

enrollments from these countries declined following the 2008 global economic crisis

(Kraft & Redman, 2017).

China has countered this trend among East Asian countries. Since 2007, Chinese

IEP enrollments have increased more than one thousand percent. This trend parallels

rising Chinese undergraduate enrollments in the United States over the same period of

time and has been attributed to a burgeoning middle class in China (Kraft & Redman,

2017; Tsang, 2013). Faced with a competitive, narrow path to undergraduate study in

China, parents with greater economic opportunity have begun to invest in their children’s

education overseas. The various higher education programs in the United States, many

carrying equal or greater levels of prestige than Chinese universities, serve as alternatives

to domestic study (Redden, 2010).

Despite the consistency with which East Asian countries have dominated IEP

enrollment, Saudi Arabia has also established itself as a major source of IEP students. In

fact, Saudi Arabia has consistently been among the top ten sending countries for IEPs.

Yet the events of 9/11 caused a decline in Saudi enrollment and overall IEP enrollment. In

the wake of this tragedy, the Saudi government established the King Abdullah

Scholarship Program (KASP). This scholarship program seeks to promote cultural

28

awareness between adult Saudi students and non-Saudi individuals through fully

subsidized overseas study grants.

Saudi students participating in KASP are considered “sponsored students.” A

sponsor is defined as “a third-party entity, such as a government, international

organization, university or employer that provides the funding for the scholarships and

sets the rules of its use” (Schmiegel, 2017, p. 138). Two aspects of sponsorship are

pertinent to this study; one is specific to the Saudi IEP population, whereas the other is

relevant to many students whose IEP attendance is sponsored. First, the level of financial

support for KASP-sponsored students is impressive. It includes travel costs and stipends

not only for the sponsored students, but also for the students’ spouses and children.

Second, many of these sponsors consider the students a national, or institutional,

investment. That is, oftentimes sponsored students are considered employees of their

sponsors and may have a contractual obligation to repay their sponsorship through

service to either a government office or company (Schmiegel, 2017, pp. 142–143).

Figure 3 illustrates these trends by showing Chinese and Saudi IEP student

enrollments since 2000. The 15-year time span includes events such as the September 11,

2001 terrorist attacks, after which Saudi enrollments dropped more than 85 percent, and

the creation of KASP (2005), after which Saudi IEP student enrollment increased from

348 to more than 38,000 in 2014. Developments in Chinese society that have contributed

to rising IEP enrollments are less obvious. There is no single historic event or turning

point that can be anchored on a timeline. Rather, the development of the Chinese middle

class spans, precedes, and follows the 2000–2015 time period.

29

Figure 3 IEP student enrollments from China and Saudi Arabia from 2000–2015.

IEPs are expected to remain vulnerable to fluctuating student enrollments. At the

time of this writing, Saudi student enrollments in IEPs have begun to drop. The Saudi

Ministry of Education is now limiting the number of students it will sponsor for overseas

study, including in IEPs; the reason for this withdrawal of financial support has not been

officially disclosed. Regardless of the cause or causes, many colleges in the United States

are now scrambling to fill the empty seats Saudi students have vacated.

Historically, IEPs have always been sites of preparation where adults develop

their English-language proficiency so they may successfully carry out their daily

academic tasks in English. The aim of this chapter has been to (a) provide an overview of

these programs, including their establishment, development, and current state; (b) outline

the diversity in curriculum, length of study, and course content; (c) illustrate the

30

instability of IEP enrollments compared to international undergraduate and graduate

study in the United States; and (d) detail how circumstances, both global and domestic,

influence the student enrollments of specific countries. The literature review in the

following chapter offers further insight into the international student experience at the

college level for both adult and non-adult learners.

31

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study focuses on the social and academic adjustment of IEP students to the

university. This chapter will review the relevant literature pertaining to academic

adjustment, social adjustment, and intent to persist among international students and IEP

students, specifically. The present study serves as a partial corrective to the literature on

former IEP student adjustment to the university; examining students’ adjustment

experiences at colleges and universities across the United States. The aim of this study is

to promote advocacy. Advocacy for international students who have attended IEPs and

may need additional support as they progress through college; and advocacy for IEPs as

an on-campus resource that helps students transition to matriculated student status.

International students have reported some of the highest levels of academic distress and

social anxiety compared to students from the United States (Kawamoto, Youn,

Bartholomew, Castonguay, & Locke, 2017). As reports of resentment and hostility toward

international students increase (Redden, 2016a; Redden, 2016b; Saul, 2016) Programs

that help students adjust to college are in the interest of all stakeholders.

This chapter is organized into two halves. First, the literature on the academic and

social adjustment experiences of international students is reviewed, this includes

international students who entered college without attending an IEP (direct entry), and

international students who attended an IEP. The adult learner is discussed throughout, and

the unique, often challenging adjustment experiences of the adult (second) language

learner are discussed. Bridging the first half of the chapter to the second half is a

32

discussion of the theoretical framework; connecting the international student adjustment

experiences to the constructs of this study in the second half.

1. What is the relationship between international students’ academic experiences in

Intensive English Programs, and their academic adjustment as a matriculated

college student?

2. What is the relationship between international students’ social experiences in

Intensive English Programs, and their social adjustment as a matriculated college

student?

3. What is the relationship between international students’ IEP experiences, their

social and academic adjustment as a matriculated college student, and their intent

to persist until graduation at the same college?

In the first two chapters of this study, the term adjustment has been used broadly,

but not defined. Adjustment is used in this study to reflect a “fit” between the individual

and environment (Ramsay, Barker, & Jones, 1999; Wu, & Hammond, 2011). Other

concepts such as acculturation or integration were considered, but were rejected due to

their associations with established theories in the fields of second language acquisition

(SLA) and higher education (Schuman, 1979; 1986) (Tinto, 1975). In SLA, acculturation

is affiliated with a grand theory of language acquisition that shares the same name.

During the early 1990s, the Social Turn in SLA (Block, 2002; Watson-Gregeo, 2002)

inspired criticism of this theory on the merits that acculturation seemed to promote

cultural assimilation into the host cultural as a desired end state. This criticism of the term

acculturation is also reflected in higher education studies (Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora,

2000).

33

Similar issues surround the term integration in the field of higher education

studies. It is a highly recognizable term associated with Tinto’s (1975) theoretical model

of college student dropout (Braxton, 2000). A key concept in this model is the importance

of integration into the social and academic worlds of the college (Tinto, 1975, 1976).

Like acculturation, integration was critiqued on the basis that it promoted an

assimilationist stance (Attinasi, 1989; Tierney, 1992). Additionally, the importance of

socially integrating into the social life of the college does not account for the experience

of adult learners, who are more invested in social relationships off campus (Jalomo, 1995;

Tierney, 1997).

Adjustment is an often ill-defined, phenomenon (Leong & Chou, 1994). In this

study I use adjustment as a psychosocial phenomenon related to self-efficacy and social

support. In describing a new theory of persistence based on psychological concepts such

as self-efficacy, Bean & Eaton (2000) use the term adjustment—rather than adaptation or

integration—for similar purposes.

International Student Adjustment to College

Research on former Intensive English Program (IEP) students who are now

matriculated college students is minimal. Although research on this topic has increased in

the last five years, scholars have few published studies to reference. Additionally, the

majority of these studies used qualitative methodologies such as phenomenology,

grounded theory, and ethnography. These studies reveal insights into the lived

experiences of former IEP students; however, establishing a broad foundation requires

detailing trends across IEPs—at a specific time, as well as over a period of time. Below I

review the literature on former IEP students now studying at U.S. colleges and

34

universities. While reviewing this literature I highlight what has been learned about these

students, particularly in relation to the research questions of this study: Students who did

not attend an IEP are included for comparison purposes only.

Academic Adjustment and International Students

In college classrooms, lower English proficiency affects a student’s confidence

and ability with specific tasks such as listening to lectures, taking notes, writing in

different genres, and participation in both class and with classmates in group projects

outside of class (Andrade, 2005; 2009; Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Case, 2004; Dunkel,

Mishra, & Berliner, 1989; Hull, 1978; Leki, 2001; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006).

Students’ concern about their English language proficiency and course expectations for

class participation has been linked to students dropping a course, or accepting a lower

grade for non-participation (Andrade, 2005; Yan, 2017).

At the graduate level, international graduate students have confided an

anxiousness when speaking with a native English speaker, frustration at not being to

communicate with advisors, and teachers pausing to try to understand what a student is

saying (Halic, Greenberg, & Paulus, 2009; Morita, 2004).

Students enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) courses often find the

experience repetitive (Andrade, 2009; Todey, 2014). Placement in an ESL course has also

been met with resentment or embarrassment; that peers see such courses as remedial or

basic (Todey, 2014). Finally, students in ESL courses report feeling isolated form the rest

of the college (Kwon, 2009).

The demands of academic work given the additional component of language

proficiency can also affect social experiences too. Students have indicated that they have

35

to work harder and study longer than their native-English speaking classmates, which

infringes on their available free time.

Academic Adjustment and IEP Students

The research on former IEP students’ adjustment experiences to college are most

frequently master’s theses (Long, 2013; Selz, 2014; South, 1992) or doctoral dissertations

(Caldwell, 2013; Fox, 2017; Hall, 2013; Honegger, 2016). Studies are almost without

exception focused on a single cohort at the same college, and are frequently conducted by

an IEP teacher or administrator who has worked with the students they are studying (Hall,

2013; Case, 2004; Heitner, Hoekje & Braciszewski, 2011). I am also an IEP administrator

and some of the participants in this study are former students. The slight increase in

studies published on IEPs, discussed above, may reflect the increase in student

enrollments discussed in Chapter 2. The proximity of the researcher to the subject is not

atypical, but it may also reflect a larger unawareness at colleges and universities of what

IEPs are and who they serve.

Studies on the academic experiences of former IEP students now studying as

matriculated college students in the United States reveal a few trends. Surveying the

limited, available data, IEPs may not offer any significant advantage compared to an

international student who satisfied the language requirements of his or her school

(TOEFL or IELTS) and enrolled in their respective college directly (direct entry). Selz’s

(2014) thesis compared former IEP students to direct-entry international students at the

University of Minnesota. Using the Student Experience at a Research University (SERU)

instrument, an instrument created at the University of Minnesota, the author observed that

mean scores for academic measures on the SERU were not significantly different for

36

direct-entry students. Heitner, Hoekje, & Brasciszewski (2011) observed a similar pattern

for students who had attended Temple University’s Gateway program (a conditional

admission program). Although former IEP students’ GPA were not significantly different

from direct-entry students, an additional analysis revealed that before matriculation, 73%

of these Gateway program students were able to improve their IELTS score in order to

meet the entry requirements of the university.

Studies approached the academic adjustment of former IEP students from

multiple theoretical and analytical perspectives. The earliest study on former IEP student

adjustment to university was conducted by South (1992). With a sample that can be

considered large for an IEP study (N = 169), South compared students standardized test

scores, length of time in IEP, and GPA. Students’ GPA were collected in the first quarter

of their first year as matriculated students, and again a year later. Results of this study

indicate that number of IEP classes correlated with GPA: Students who had taken fewer

than 12 IEP classes originally had higher GPAs when compared to students who had

taken 12 IEP classes or more. However, GPAs for the group that had taken fewer IEP

classes declined after a year. Those who had taken 12 or more IEP classes maintained

their GPAs over this same period of time. An additional finding was that students’

language scores (standardized test scores) correlated with GPA and IEP course grades.

English proficiency and GPA were linked in Honegger’s (2016) phenomenological study.

Several demographic variables of interest in this study include age, being married,

and having caregiving responsibilities. These variables define the adult learner in this

study and are discussed in greater detail at the end of this chapter. Caldwell (2013)

conducted a study of college adjustment that included marital status and having children

37

as control variables. Data were collected across 10 campuses in the California State

University system using only Saudi Arabian students who were sponsored by the King

Abdullah Scholarship Program (KASP). All participants (N = 245) had attended an IEP,

some on different California State University campuses. Results indicate that married

students had a more positive orientation experience and fewer attendance problems than

unmarried students; there was no difference in adjustment scores for students with

children when compared to students without children. Additionally, Case’s (2004)

ethnographic study observed that spouses may also help former IEP students

academically, assisting with coursework. Although most studies of adjustment to college

after attending an IEP examine, only undergraduate students (Oswalt, 2015; Fox, 2017;

Heitner, Hoekje, & Brasciszewski; 2011), some included graduate students (Caldwell,

2013; Case, 2004). Caldwell noted that graduate students experienced more health

problems than undergraduates.

The qualitative findings from the literature on former IEP students’ experiences as

matriculated students sheds light on the relationships between IEP coursework, and

confidence performing college-level academic tasks. Interview data from existing

qualitative studies indicated that IEPs were helpful for getting students accustomed to the

academic culture of American universities such as reading longer texts, and writing

academic texts (Honegger, 2016); as well as helping with feeling confident to speak

(Long, 2015) and giving presentations (Oswalt, 2015). Finally, interpersonal relationships

that students developed during their time in an IEP helped students with their academics

(Case, 2004). Meaning, having a college class with a former IEP classmate can provide a

safe person to talk to, or ask questions of, regarding course work.

38

In summary, the literature on international students who did not attend an IEP

reflects participants’ difficulty in self-expression through language with other students

and with faculty. Additionally, students who were enrolled in ESL courses expressed

embarrassment or boredom with these classes. International students who attended an IEP

and were later matriculated college students reported language gains in their IEP courses

which helped them adjust to their college classes. There is some evidence to suggest that

academic outcomes such as GPA and English language proficiency are positively

correlated (Honegger, 2016; South, 1992); this trend held true for direct-entry students—

who did not attend an IEP—and for those students who did attend an IEP.

Social Adjustment and International Students

In this section I describe the social experiences of international students studying

at colleges in the United States. This content is organized around three themes: Friends

from the United States (host country), friends from the same country, and social

adjustment for married students. Historically, the literature on international students

suggests that there are multiple benefits to befriending a host national; that friendship

with people from the host country help to diminish feelings of homesickness, loneliness,

and are associated with other positive outcomes (Perrucci, & Hu, 1995; Surdam &

Collins, 1984 Trice, 2004; Zimmerman, 1995). Other studies show that these friendships

do not significantly predict greater levels of adjustment or satisfaction (Rajpaksa &

Dundes, 2002).

Similar to academic adjustment, confidence in one's English language ability

influences (potential) relationships between international students and host national

students (Andrade, 2005; Barratt & Huba, 2002). It is important to mention, however, a

39

study in which international students reject potential friendships with host nationals.

Mori’s (2000) study suggests that confidence in language ability does not solely

determine the potential friendships with most national students. In this study, Chinese

college students in the United States, several participants indicated that they didn't

particularly experience host national students as being pleasant or enjoyable. In contrast

to studies that suggest friendships with host nationals are vital to adjustment, more recent

research provides evidence that friends from one’s home country can facilitate similar

feelings of well-being and connectedness (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998).

For international students who are currently living with their spouse, research

indicates that this relationship between a couple often decreases the amount of socializing

with host national students, or other people outside of immediate relatives or friends

(Cadieux & Wehrly, 1986). Although living with a spouse may decrease the amount of

time spent socializing outside of that relationship, married international students have

also reported higher scores of social adjustment than non-married international students

(Hayes & Lin, 1994; Pedersen, 1991; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006).

Social Adjustment and IEP Students

Less is known about the social adjustment experiences than the academic

adjustment experiences of former IEP students now attending a college in the United

States. The findings that are most relevant to this study are those that intersect with

academic experiences (Honegger, 2016), engagement in clubs or organizations (Fox,

2017), and role of a family member as a source of support (Case, 2004) or stress

(Honegger, 2016).

40

Honegger’s (2016) phenomenological study of 22 former IEP students examined

differences between high performing (GPA > 3.0) and low performing (GPA < 2.5)

students. Those students who were higher performing were (a) more proficient in

English, and (b) more socially involved. Greater social involvement included spending

time with friends, and participating in clubs or organizations. Social involvement in

organized activities can also facilitate friendships. A participant in Fox’s (2017) study

was a former bridge program student (an IEP that provides conditional admission to the

college). Before coming to the United States, this participant had hoped he would become

friends with someone from the United States. Such a friendship emerged out of attending

social events put on by his program. This participant reported that he is now roommates

with this friend; something he would never have imagined before coming to the United

States (Fox, 2017).

Family members often play a role in encouraging international study (Somers,

Haines, & Keene, 2006). For Saudi students, this is especially true. This can take the

form of having a family member who is currently studying in the United States, inviting a

relative to attend the same school (Case, 2004; Hall, 2013); or in the case of Saudi

students, a male relative accompanying his female relative in the capacity of Wali al-Amr,

or “guardian.” (Hall, 2013). This familial obligation is a Saudi tradition in which a male

relative is obligated to watch over an unmarried female relative, or relative who is

younger than 18 years old. Sometimes a Saudi male comes to the United States, attends

an IEP, then matriculates to a U.S. college through this guardianship system; maybe with

less initial enthusiasm for college than his relative (Hall, 2013). In Hall’s study, the extent

to which a family member was a source of stress or support, is difficult to discern.

41

Honegger (2016) found that family pressure to do well, expressed by family members

from home (outside the United States) was a source of stress, as was the health of family

members who were sick or dying. These experiences of stress contrast with Case’s (2004)

study. In Case’s ethnographic study, having a family member on the campus was a source

of support and comfort.

In summary, for direct entry international students and former IEP students,

social adjustment can be facilitated through support from many sources: co-nationals,

host-nationals, family, and spouses. The social experiences of former IEP students who

are now matriculated college students in the United States suggest that social

engagement, organized or not, is associated with positive academic and emotional well-

being (happiness) outcomes. A family member, however, can be a source of stress or

support. In the discussion below, the adult international student is given special attention.

The challenges of navigating a foreign language, relying on others for help, and a

potential loss of professional identity are discussed.

Adult International Student Adjustment

A lack of facility with a second language can greatly affect adult learners,

unintentionally projecting identities such as a fool or a less-than competent parent.

Because language mediates our daily interactions, including formal, informal, and non-

formal learning contexts, limited language fluency profoundly shapes adults’ lives. In this

section I describe the loss of professional identity that adult language learners often

experience when living in a foreign country, as well as the phenomenon of language

brokering, in which children whose parents have limited language proficiency help to

interpret or translate important documents and conversations.

42

In addition to the criteria used in the present study to identify adult learners (i.e.,

age, caregiving responsibilities, being married), another commonly used marker of adult

learner status is a return to formal education after significant time away (Bland, 2003;

Compton, Cox, Laanan, 2006; MacKinnon-Slaney, 1994). For adult learners, the loss of a

professional identity when returning to class can be met with frustration. Although no

studies were found to date examining international adult learners as matriculated

undergraduate or graduate students, in my time as an IEP lecturer and administrator, I

have taught and advised students who are hoping to advance their career with a degree or

certificate from the United States, after they successfully complete our program

curriculum. Quite often these students’ express frustration with the maturity level of their

classmates. Other studies have examined the loss of professional identity among students

in community-based language programs (De Verthelyi, 1995; Norton-Peirce, 1995).

Language brokering in immigrant families. A difference between international

students who qualify as adult learners compared to non-adult learners is reliance on

others, particularly one’s children, to help accomplish daily tasks. Immigrants often serve

as language and culture brokers for their parents, translating and interpreting information

from school, the doctor’s office, or the daily mail (Guan, Nash, & Orellana, 2016;

Martinez, McClure, & Eddy, 2009; Morales & Hanson, 2005; Tse, 1996; Weisskirch &

Alva, 2002). This experience for children can foster a familial closeness or be performed

out of a familial sense of obligation, but it may also precipitate unpleasant emotions. For

Middle Eastern children, this can include a sense of embarrassment (Guan, Nash, &

Orellana, 2016), and for Chinese parents, language brokering can engender feelings of

hopelessness and guilt (Ali, 2008).

43

After reviewing the existing literature on academic and social adjustment in

direct-entry international and IEP students, I shift the focus to a discussion of relevant

theories that inform this study and help frame the research questions I have proposed.

Theoretical Framework

This study incorporates theory and constructs from psychology, sociology, and

anthropology that have been applied to research in second language acquisition. In this

section I describe how, taken together, theories of psychosocial well-being, social and

cultural capital, and language socialization provide the framework for this study.

The operationalization of academic and social adjustment are inspired by

psychology. The constructs of academic self-efficacy and social provisions represent

academic adjustment and social adjustment, respectively. Social support can provide a

buffer against academic stressors (Cohen, & Syme, 1985; Wills, 1991), therefore the two

constructs are not seen as entirely independent of each other. Broadly, this aligns with the

theories of persistence and retention in higher education that inform the “intent to persist”

component of this study. The academic and social experiences while attending college

shape students’ intent to graduate (in the present study, graduate from their current

institution) (Bean & Eaton, 2000; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Eaton & Bean, 1995; Museus

& Quaye, 2009; Tinto, 1993).

Theories of social and cultural capital have influenced research in second

language acquisition and education. International students are at the intersection of both

fields of study (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986; Coleman; Museus, 2014;

Museus, & Quaye, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Unfamiliar with cultural norms and

ways of communicating, international students may be on unequal footing compared to

44

their domestic (i.e., from the United States) classmates. Mentor opportunities may be one

way that IEP students gain access to forms of capital that are valued within the college. In

second language acquisition studies, research on social and cultural capital frequently

draws on language socialization (Duff, 2010; Pavelnko & Norton, 2007). Opportunities to

enroll in undergraduate and graduate level courses while still enrolled in the IEP may

provide opportunities for students to observe and participate in authentic classroom

interactions. These experiences, which can be facilitated by an IEP, should help to

prepare international students for matriculation.

This first half of the chapter ends with an overview of theories and models of

college student persistence and retention. These provide the broader framework for this

study within which constructs of adjustment (i.e., academic self-efficacy, social

provisions) and social experiences that can enhance adjustment (i.e., social and cultural

capital, language socialization) are discussed in relation to intent to persist until

graduation..

International Student Intent to Persist

In this study, I draw upon research in higher education studies, specifically,

research on persistence (until graduation) and retention. These models and theories have

been created to predict and prevent student drop out, or attrition. They also offer

explanatory force for how academic and social experiences enable or hinder eventual

graduation. The third research question of this study is an exploratory examination of the

combined influence of academic and social adjustment on intent to persist. Intent to

persist is the participant’s level of belief that he or she will eventually graduate from their

current college. This research project is not a study of persistence or retention.

45

This review begins with Tinto’s Student Integration Model (SIM), and is followed

by a discussion of Bean & Metzner’s (1985) Student Attrition Model (SAM), which takes

into consideration the adult learner. Bean and Metzner’s model accounts for adult

learners’ multiple roles and responsibilities and how decisions to persist in college are

influenced by circumstances apart from the college campus environment. Finally, the

international student is discussed. Theories on non-White (minority) college student

adjustment and persistence have drawn from critical theory (Tierney, 1992, 1997, 2000)

and theories of social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986;

Coleman, 1988; Museus, 2014; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; McCoy & Winkle-Wagner, 2015).

These theories give insight into the lives of international college students in the United

States.

An influential theorist in persistence studies is Vincent Tinto (1975, 1993). His

initial work has been critiqued, elaborated, tested, and revised. Considered incomplete—

but worthy of retaining as a broad framework—Tinto’s Student Integration Model (SIM)

has achieved “paradigmatic stature,” (Braxton, 2005, p. 107).

Tinto (1975) developed his influential Student Integration Model to bring

theoretical coherence to the phenomenon of college student dropout. Referencing van

Gennep’s (1960) rites of passage theory and Durkheim’s theory of suicide (1966), Tinto

theorized that a student’s experience of successful integration into the academic and

social life of the college by passing through three stages: separation, transition, and

finally integration (van Gennep, 1960). Failure to integrate would lead to student dropout,

which Tinto explicated using Durkheim’s theory of suicide. Over time, a student’s

successful academic integration increases their commitment to graduation; similarly,

46

successful social integration is positively associated with increased commitment to their

respective college. Relevant to the present study are the relationships between academic

and social integration and intent to graduate from a student’s current college. Elaborating

on academic and social experiences in college, Tinto (1993) states,

Colleges are made up of both academic and social systems, each with its

own characteristic formal and informal structure and set of student, staff,

and faculty communities. The former, the academic, concerns itself almost

entirely with the formal education of students. The latter, the social system

of the college, centers about the daily life and personal needs of the

various members of the institution, especially the students. (p. 106)

In the present study, academic adjustment and social adjustment are conceptualized

similarly. Examined together, as overlapping and mutually reinforcing phenomena, higher

levels of academic and social adjustment should predict a student’s intent to graduate.

However, adjustment, as it is used in the present study differs from Tinto’s integration. In

Tinto’s original model, integration implied an integrating into, and internalizing, the

norms and values of the college (Tinto, 2012). Additionally, Tinto’s model only examined

the college setting. This was the only site where academic and social integration

occurred. Responses to Tinto’s use of integration are discussed below from the

perspective of adult learners and non-White students. These are discussed in succession

below.

Measuring Adult Learner Intent to Persist

In this study, the characteristics that distinguish an adult learner from other

college students are age (participants who are at least twenty-five years old);

47

responsibilities, (caregiving for a child); and social roles in the adults’ life that may

conflict with one another (here, being a student and a spouse) (Kasworm, 2003). Simply,

the adult learner balances life commitments both on and off the college campus. Within

Tinto’s (1975) model, academic and social integration into the various college

communities (i.e., classrooms, clubs, social gatherings) contribute to persistence. From

this perspective, the adult learner is less likely to persist until graduation.

In response to Tinto, and in consideration for the adult learner, Bean and Metzner

(1985) created the Student Attrition Model. In contrast to Tinto’s sociological and

anthropological orientation, Bean and Metzner incorporated constructs in psychology

(such as stress, and family satisfaction), and research on occupational turnover. The

Student Attrition Model is intended for students who are either (a) at least twenty-four

years old, (b) a commuter (residing off campus); or (c) studying part-time; incorporates

aspects of students’ lives off campus. The results of Bean and Metzner’s analyses using

the Student Attrition Model suggest that environmental factors (i.e., stressors external to

the institution such as family obligations) exert more influence over persistence than the

student’s experiences within the university (i.e., getting good grades).

Measuring International Student Intent to Persist

The research on international student persistence or retention is scarce (Evans,

Carlin, & Potts, 2009; Mamiseishvili, 2012). Andrade (2009) suggests that two reasons

for this gap in the literature are (a) the disproportionately low numbers of international

students among all students in higher education in the United States; and (b) that

international students, as a cohort, have some of the highest graduation rates of all

students studying in U.S. colleges. To incorporate the former IEP international student in

48

this study, I turn now to the critical assessments of Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration

Model that address the adjustment experiences of international students. Following

Andrade (2009, pp. 31-32), I apply theories created for non-White (minority) students to

international students. Although these can be very different groups of students, with

different needs for support, they are not always mutually exclusive (Andrade, 2009, p.

32).

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the term integration, as defined in

Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Model, has been criticized for placing the burden on

the student to change, to adapt to the university rather than asking institutions to

acknowledge and value difference (Tierney, 1992). For non-White students, this can be

tantamount to rejecting a part of one’s heritage or culture (Rendon, Nora, & Jalomo,

2000; Tierney, 1992). Suggested alternatives are (a) to promote connections between

family members and friends who can help the new or potential student learn the

geography and services of the campus, a process called “anticipatory socialization”

(Attinasi, 1989; Weidman, 1989); (b) to foster biculturalism, or the flexibility to live in

“two worlds,” rather than acculturation or assimilation (Rendon, Nora, & Jalomo, 2000);

and (c) valuing personal interpretations of what it means to “belong” to a group,

organization, or circle of friends on campus.

This first half of this chapter provided insights on former Intensive English

Program students and their academic and social adjustment to college in the United

States. Also, this chapter introduced the theoretical framework for the present study. This

framework is situated within broader studies of persistence and retention; specifically,

those models and theories that articulate the role of academic and social adjustment as

49

vital components in a student’s intent to persist or withdrawal. In the second half I present

the rest of the concepts and constructs in this study.

Constructs and Concepts

The second half of this chapter contains a discussion of the constructs that operate

as variables in this study. Additionally, I provide an overview of the theories that inspired

the creation of specific survey items. Broadly, the latter refers to IEP-related experiences,

opportunities (social or academic), or services that might enhance adjustment to college.

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a socially situated theory of learning and behavior

(Bandura, 1980). When a person is able to successfully complete a task, or achieve a

desired outcome, their self-efficacy increases. This leads to a greater chance that this

person can perform the same, or a related, task with lower levels of stress and anxiety. It

guides behavior and motivation in this way. A failure to complete a task can decrease

levels of self-efficacy.

The socially situated nature of self-efficacy refers to vicarious experience, or the

ability to increase levels of self-efficacy simply by watching others carry out tasks

successfully (Bandura & Walters, 1977; Mattern & Shaw, 2010). Although self-efficacy,

broadly, can exert a global effect, it is intended to measure efficacy related to specific

activities (Bandura & Walters, 1977). The research on the effects of academic self-

efficacy in college students is extensive, due in part to the related academic and social

outcomes it promotes (Ali, 2008; Brown, Lent, & Larkin, 1989; Chartrand, 1992; Gore,

2006; Natera, 1998; Owen & Froman, 1988; Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora, McPherson, &

Pisecco, 2002; Strayhorn, 2011).

50

Academic self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy describes one’s confidence in

his/her ability to successfully complete a variety of college-level academic tasks (Owen

& Froman, 1988; Solberg & Villareal 1997). Numerous studies have drawn on self-

efficacy, specifically academic self-efficacy, to understand adjustment to the college

(Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Pajares & Miller, 1994;

Pajares & Schunk, 2001 Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora, McPherson, & Pisecco, 2002; Ramos-

Sanchez & Nichols, 2007). The number of studies using different measures of academic

self-efficacy is not surprising, since they are among the strongest predictors of outcomes

and persistence in higher education, both for students in general (Multon, Brown, & Lent,

1991; Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley, & Carlstrom, 2004), and “underprepared

students” in particular (Peterson, 1993, p. 660). A causal relationship between self-

efficacy and adjustment, broadly, has also drawn empirical and theoretical support within

educational psychology and retention research Chemers et al., 2001; Gore, 2006; Gore,

Leuwerke, & Turley, 2005).

Prior research suggests that academic self-efficacy is important for adult learners

(Cubeta, Travers, & Sheckey, 2001; Gigliotti & Huff, 1995; Golden, 2006; Kasworm,

2008; Tennant, 2012). It has been associated with (a) fewer reported psychosocial

adjustment problems for international graduate students (Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora,

McPherson, & Pisecco) and (b) fewer academic adjustment issues for first-year

international undergraduate students (Chemers, Hu, & Garcis, 2001), first-generation and

non-first generation undergraduate students (Ramos-Sanchez & Nichols, 2007), and

undergraduates in general (Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011).

51

Social support. In this study, social adjustment denotes a stressful event that may

be buffered by social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support are experiences, or

perceptions thereof, a person has in relation to other people which indicate that this

person is loved, cared for, respected, and of worth (Cohen & Smyne, 1985; Wills, 1991).

Social support can provide a buffer from a stressful event and can be provided by

different people (e.g. family members, friends, faculty). Social support can be categorized

as either functional or structural. The latter focuses more on the existence and size of the

social network, whereas the functional assesses the quality of social networks and the

functions different people serve for an individual (Cohen & Smyne, 1985). This study

embraces a functional approach to social support because it investigates the types of

support international students who have studied in an IEP receive at their college,

specifically as a result of social ties formed through IEP experiences. The facets of social

support examined in this study were theorized by Weiss (1974) and developed into an

instrument, the Social Provisions Scale (SPS), by Cutrona and Russell (1984, 1987).

Studies have indicated that social support can have positive benefits for academic-

related stress for international students. In a study of 72 international undergraduate

students, social support as a mediator for international student academic stressors was

demonstrated (Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003). Meaning, students who had close,

supportive relationships with co-national students scored lower on measures of academic

stress. For international graduate students, social support buffered against academic

stress, family support did not (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). Finally, a study of both

undergraduate and graduate international students (N = 172) found that social support

decreased levels of academic stress for men but not for women (Bang, 2009).

52

In Bean and Metzner’s (1985) Student Attrition Model, social support from family

or spouse is a distinguishing feature. In her study of adult learner persistence, Chartrand

(1992) drew inspiration from Bean and Metzner (1985). Examining relationships located

off college campus, Chartrand indicated that family and friend support reduced stress for

participants. Studies of married international students have also observed that social

support from a spouse can reduce acculturative stress (Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, & Al-

Timimi, 2004); however, some studies indicate that the effect of social support is no

greater for married students than unmarried students (Ramsay, Jones, & Barker, 2007)

Capital. In the following section I briefly review theories that influenced the

creation of this study and guided my decisions related to variable inclusion in the three

models I propose. However, these constructs are better suited for examination using

qualitative research methods; such as field observations and interviews (Lareau &

Weininger, 2003; Ochs, & Schieffelin, 2012). As a result, findings related to these

variables are tentative and will be interpreted cautiously.

Bourdieu’s theories of class reproduction, language, and identity have influenced

research in second language acquisition and education. Bourdieu’s theories of cultural

and social capital have provided a language for articulating how class inequalities are

reproduced (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986). Beginning at home, capital and

is passed on from parent to child though the parents’ expression of value systems, ways

of being, knowledge, tastes, and dispositions; as well as the meanings ascribed to them in

a social setting or field (Bourdieu, 1977; Lin, 2001). Outside the house, the child carries

these symbolic, embodied experiences. For example, in the classroom, what the child

values and how these values are expressed will be set against preferred, often tacit,

53

standards of appropriateness in that setting. A child who has been raised in a middle-class

home with well-educated parents is more likely to have the capital that is both recognized

and valued in school. Consequently, what has been passed along at home, and validated

at school, will often confer advantages for this child when compared to a child who has a

different home life.

Equally influential in language and education research is social capital. Broadly,

this refers to the networks of relationships an individual has and the access to other forms

of capital which can be conferred through these relationships (Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986;

Lin, 2001). Bourdieu described social capital as complicit in the reproduction of class

difference embodied in cultural capital. A different interpretation of social capital was

provided by Coleman (Dika, & Singh, 2001; Lareau, 2001; Portes, 1991). For both

Coleman and Bourdieu, social capital is passed on from one generation to the next;

however, Coleman conceptualized social capital in terms betterment for one’s family

(Dika & Singh, 2001). When understood in this light, social capital refers to

“information-sharing channels and networks, as well as social norms, values, and

expected behaviors” (Perna, 2000, p. 119). Although Bourdieu’s idea of capital is relevant

to the present study, I use this term more in the vein of Coleman (1988). In the instances

where social capital refers to Bourdieu’s original definition, a distinction will be

provided.

Socialization. The role of the family and the transmission of normative, or

preferred, values and behaviors to young children is also an area of research in linguistic

anthropology. This research tradition began with the observation of mother-child

interaction, and has been extended to other sites of communication, such as a novice

54

learning a second language. In essence, language is a socially embedded experience. A

less proficient language speaker simultaneously acquires language proficiency and

information about the community, or setting, in which this language is spoken (Ochs &

Schieffelin, 2001). We learn what is ‘speakable’ or ‘unspeakable’ in different contexts

(Jung, 2009) and endeavor to be recognized as competent and coherent within different

groups (Kinginger, 2009).

Research in the second language socialization experiences of international

students is applicable to both social and the academic settings. Patricia Duff’s (2003,

2008) study of mixed speech genres in a predominantly native English-speaking

classroom exemplifies both the social and the academic. In her study, Duff observed how

the teacher and other students mixed the language of instruction with pop culture

references. Consequently, the non-native English speaking students were not able to

follow the flow of activity and may have missed what was being taught. Getting the joke

can convey not only the words being spoken, but communicates a degree of cultural

understanding (Hoffman, 1989). In his study of Chinese student adjustment experiences

at a university in the United States, study participants shared a common experience of not

understanding American humor. Rather than coping with the awkwardness of not

laughing, study participants confided that they preferred to socialize exclusively with co-

nationals instead (Pan, 2014).

Socialization has also been examined in higher education studies, most notably by

Attinasi (1989). Expanding on Weidman’s Anticipatory Socialization to college theory,

Attinasi studied the different stages young Latino men go through in coming to learn

about a college campus and the campus environment, a process facilitated by an older

55

sibling or friend. Anticipatory socialization has also been examined for students who are

dual-enrolled (i.e., high school students who are taking a college course) (Mechur Karp,

2012).

Inspiration for gathering data related to social and cultural capital, and (language)

socialization came from second language acquisition studies and higher education

studies. In higher education research, Bourdieu (Bourdieu/Passeron, 1986), Coleman

(1988), and Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) readings of social and cultural capital have been

used to examine the transition from summer bridge programs to college (McCoy &

Winkle-Wagner, 2015; Stolle-McAllister, 2011; Strayhorn, 2011).

Bridge programs serve as a site of preparation for incoming students who may

need additional course preparation and orientation to the systems of college. Though

these programs may be closely associated with recent high school graduates who are

transitioning to college, bridge programs also assist adult learners transitioning from

community colleges to four-year institutions (Eggleston, & Laanan, 2001; Garcia, 1991).

IEP students share some characteristics with bridge program students. First, both groups

are enrolled in a pre-matriculation, or pre-sessional program. Second, bridge programs

and IEPs may provide access to social networks, and orientation to the resources

available on campus to help students succeed (Farrell, Cranston, & Bullington, 2013;

Shaw, 2010; Stolle-McAllister, 2011; York, & Tross, 1994). Helping students acculturate

to the campus community through social networks and the support systems available at a

college are done in addition to the preparation for academic success. Third, bridge

program students and IEP students often participate in their respective programs because

a college has identified potential obstacles to success that an “intervention” might

56

ameliorate (Hamrick, 2012; Raines, 2012; Walpole, Simmerman, Mack, Mills, Scales, &

Albano, 2008). Although a relationship between bridge program participation and

persistence until graduation has not been established (Cabrera, Milner, & Milem, 2013),

studies suggest that attending a bridge program may enhance levels of academic self-

efficacy (Stolle-McAllister, 2011; Strayhorn, 2011).

Adult learner. Unlike younger college students whose transition to college often

marks the first of multiple life events characterized by increasing maturity, independence,

and responsibility (e.g., marriage and raising a child); the adult learner is often balancing

these commitments and demands. Because colleges in the United States have historically

oriented programming, curriculum, and support resources to younger students, the adult

learner often experiences greater difficulty adjusting to college compared to younger

students (Haselgrove, 1994; Kasworm, Sandmann, & Sissel, 2000).

Research suggests that students older than 22 may confront feelings of

inadequacy in college classrooms when compared to their younger cohort (Ware et al.,

1993). Horn and Carroll (1996) report that students age 25 or older are more likely to

drop out or discontinue studies than younger students. In this study, age (≥ 25 years old)

is used as one of three possible markers of adult learner status; the other criteria are being

married and raising a child. As discussed earlier in this chapter, life commitments outside

of the college setting can be a source of support or strain. For international students,

being married can help with academic outcomes (Alhajjuj, 2016; Case, 2004; Poyrazli, &

Kavanaugh, 2006); however, caregiving for a child can strain international students’

already limited energy (Scheyvens, Wild, & Overton, 2003; Winters, 2013).

57

China. Participants from China are a population of interest in this study. Research

on Chinese students attending college in the United States suggests that relationships

outside of their co-national group are less common than for students from other countries

(Pan, 2014; Yan & Berliner, 2011), meaning that their friendships are often with other

Chinese students exclusively. As discussed earlier, research findings are mixed regarding

international students who do not venture beyond their national cohort, and lower

reported scores of adjustment (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998; Rose-Redwood & Rose-

Redwood, 2013; Trice, 2003).

Academically, Chinese students do not show greater levels of academic

adjustment when compared to other student cohorts (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004; Li,

Chen, & Duanmu, 2010). Although East Asian students as a cohort have historically had

greater difficulty adjusting academically (Abe, Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Heikenheimo

& Schute, 1986; Poyrazli et al., 2006; Smith, Bowman, & Hsu, 2007), recent news

reports of Chinese students studying in colleges in the United States have brought

increasing attention to academic dishonesty on a large scale (Gui, Qing, Harney,

Stecklow, & Pomfret, 2016).

Adult international students from China have reported several sources of stress or

guilt associated with family and support (Huang, 2012; Myers-Walls, Frias, Kwon, Ko, &

Lu, 2011). These experiences include worry for a spouse who didn’t move to or join the

adult learner in the United States; difficulty in finding childcare, and a lack of social

support from family members who are not living in the United States (Myers-Walls,

Frias, Kwon, Ko, & Lu, 2011).

58

Saudi Arabia. Recent studies of Saudi student adjustment to colleges in the

United States suggest a lack of preparation for the rigors of course work (Alotaibi, 2016;

Hall, 2013; Schwartz, 2016). IEPs had been the primary entry point for college access

among Saudi students; however, the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission (SACM) has now

significantly scaled back scholarships and financial support for students wanting to study

in the United States. Now, students must meet more stringent academic and linguistic

expectations before sponsorship, meaning that sponsorship by SACM is more restricted

for individuals who demonstrate higher academic and English language abilities. By

extension, these students should have a greater opportunity to succeed in their host

institution. Some evidence suggests that there is a link between student adjustment,

graduation rates among Saudi students studying in the United States, and the withdrawal

of scholarships and financial support by SACM (Alotaibi, 2016).

Gender. The research on Saudi IEP students also indicates that Saudi women may

have greater caregiving responsibilities and consequently, more social isolation (Winters,

2015). For Chinese women studying in the United States, the results are mixed. Some

studies suggest there is no difference in social adjustment for Chinese men and women

(Hurney, 2014; Perrucci & Hu, 1995; Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, et al., 2004), whereas others

have noted greater difficulties in social adjustment for Chinese women (Fatima, 2001;

Kwon, 2009; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This lack of difference is supported by studies

focused explicitly on graduate student population and/or married students (Trice, 2003).

English language gains in IEP. To measure the participants’ English language

development during their IEP experience, I created the English language gains attributed

to IEP (ELGIEP) scale. Below, I describe the research that informs the content of this

59

scale, as well as scale properties, such as the number of items, the mode of participant

response, and method for scoring participant responses.

The rationale for creating a scale to measure participants’ English language

proficiency development while attending an IEP was twofold: First, due to the lack of

uniformity across IEPs discussed in Chapter 2 (i.e., course content, criteria for level

advancement, language-related exit requirements for college matriculation), it is difficult

to measure language development using a statistic such as cumulative GPA. Second, after

reviewing existing measures of English language proficiency that could be relevant to the

population of interest in this study, no satisfactory measure was found.

The English language gains attributed to IEP is informed by research on English

for Academic Purposes (EAP). In this strand of English language pedagogy, curriculum is

designed to prepare students for postsecondary study in an English-language medium

institution. Basturkmen (2006) summarizes the distinction between ESL and EAP

succinctly, referencing English for Specific Purposes (ESP), which is a broader subfield

of ESL within which EAP curriculum is situated: “Whereas General English teaching

tends to set out from point A toward an often-indeterminate destination, setting sail

through largely uncharted waters, [EAP] aims to speed learners through to a known

destination” (Basturkmen, 2006, p. 9). In Chapter 2 I reviewed the variation in

administration, course progression, and affiliation with a host institution (college). This

inconsistency holds true for the types of courses and course content offered at each IEP.

The language focus in some programs may be more general (“Choosing a Program” n.d.)

or may be a combination or hybrid of General English and EAP (Dantas-Whitney,

Dowling, & Larson, 2002; Stoller, 1999). Given program differences at the curricular

60

level, the ELGIEP scale was developed so that the type of course a participant took in an

IEP, or its alignment with either a more general ESL or an EAP-specific mission, was not

an impediment to participant response.

More important was a participant’s confidence in completing specific academic

tasks that have been (a) identified in EAP research as useful to learn (Jordan, 1997); (b)

reported by university professors as skills that international students need to be able to

perform, or have difficulty performing, on par with native speakers of English

(Rosenfeld, Leung, & Oltman, 2001); and (c) identified by former IEP students (Case,

2004).

Limited research has been conducted to examine they type of English language

course a student pursues, and social adjustment-related outcomes. A notable exception is

Fox, Cheng, & Zumbo’s (2014) study of participation in English for Academic Purposes

(EAP) programs compared to a non-specialized English language course. Study

participants were all enrolled in a Canadian university and attended either an English as a

Second Language (ESL) course (characterized here as a program with an emphasis on

developing speaking skills for daily interactions); or an EAP program (described as

having a curricular orientation to the language skills of reading, writing, and listening).

Results of this study suggest that participation in either program resulted in high levels of

social engagement; that is talking to other students in English. Although the ELGIEP was

created to measure English language gains within an EAP tradition, I have included it in

this model of social adjustment with the expectation that language development in an

EAP course might also predict social adjustment.

61

Dual enrollment. Participants who were enrolled in a for-credit, non-IEP course

or courses while studying in an IEP are designated as dual-enrolled. Drawing from

theories of language socialization (Duff, 2010; Schieffelin, & Ochs, 1986), Students who

gain access to academic language and course activities early, by means of dual-

enrollment, should benefit academically as undergraduate or graduate students.

IEP Mentor. In this study, a mentor is a proxy for an institutional agent. An

institutional agent has the potential to facilitate the growth of social connections in the

college for an IEP student and stems from theories of social and cultural capital (Museus,

2010; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). That is, the institutional

agent helps connect IEP students to social, cultural, and material resources.

Number of IEP social events attended. IEPs frequently provide opportunities

for students to socialize with one another outside of the structured class schedule (Barrett,

1982; Dimmitt, & Dantas-Whitney, 2002). Activities might include a visit to the museum,

attending an organized sports event, or having a picnic. Among international graduate

students, particularly married international graduate students, frequent interaction with

the host community has been associated with greater overall social satisfaction (Perrucci

& Hu, 1995). Organized IEP social events might facilitate such encounters. It is predicted

that greater involvement in IEP social events, as measured by frequency of attendance is

associated with higher levels of social support.

How social outside of IEP. Because some IEP students may opt out of organized

social events sponsored by their program; but may have a rich, active social life outside

the program, this variable was created to capture former IEP students’ self-reported level

of social activity more broadly. Becoming involved in the social life of their community,

62

IEP students may have opportunities to find their niche or developing a sense of

belonging with other people (Hayes, & Lin, 1994; Ye, 2006).

IEP on same campus. IEP students are difficult to track because they might

travel from one program to another before matriculating to undergraduate or graduate

studies. Although students may begin their IEP studies on the college campus they hope

to matriculate into, they may also complete their IEP studies in one location and

matriculate to a different college elsewhere. Remaining on the same campus, from IEP to

college matriculation, should provide opportunities to gain familiarity with the campus

environs. Staying on the same campus could also contribute to socialization into the

customs, preferred norms of interaction, and culture of the college, (Attinasi, 1989).

Attending an IEP at the same college where a student later matriculates may assist

with social adjustment as well. Similar to summer bridge programs, in which students

form bonds, later providing support for each other throughout college Gandara, 2002;

Villalpando & Solorzano; 2005); former IEP students who matriculate to a degree

program on the same campus may be able to help one another starting as early as the first

day of classes.

Still friends. Because attending an IEP does not, alone, facilitate friendships,

students in this study are asked if they are still friends with former IEP classmates.

Friendships that started in IEPs can later help provide social support and academic

support. Research suggests that international students often feel more comfortable asking

another international student for help with coursework rather than approach a non-

international student (Heikenheimo & Shute, 1986; Volet, & Ang, 2012). Additionally,

international students have remarked on the benefit of having a former IEP classmate or

63

friend in the same college course, that there is a level of comfort and familiarity in

helping one another with coursework (Case, 2004).

Graduate student. Research suggests that the academic and linguistic

experiences of international students in the United States differs depending on the

students’ level of study (i.e., undergraduate or graduate). A common theme at the

graduate level is difficulty with language socialization. This includes an ease or facility

with the language being used as well as feeling a part of the program (e.g., “speaking like

a scientist”) (Lewthwaite, 1996). Although less is known about international adult

learners at the undergraduate level, it is predicted that this population would face similar

difficulties of marginalization or a lack-of-fit, relative to their younger cohort as

described above.

Family at the same college. For students who may not be familiar with college

activities and routines such as registering for classes, dropping a class, satisfying degree

requirements, applying for on-campus housing, or connecting with campus clubs or

organizations, a family member may be an invaluable resource for navigating these

processes. This is derived from Attinasi (1989), who theorized that for non-White

students, a family member attending the same college can help with socialization into the

practices and expectations of a specific college environment.

In the next chapter I describe the pilot study that was conducted to evaluate the

comprehensibility of the survey items. Next a description of the sample is provided along

with other descriptive statistics. The analytic techniques for preparing the data are

reviewed for and the three regression analyses conducted to examine international

64

students who had attended an IEP and subsequent adjustment experiences into the college

environment.

65

Chapter 4

METHODS

The aim of this study was to investigate the academic and social adjustment of

international students, including adult learners, who had attended an Intensive English

Program (IEP) on a U.S. college campus and had matriculated to undergraduate or

graduate student status. Broadly, this study aims to establish whether international adult

learners’ adjustment experiences, and intent to graduate from their current institution,

differs from non-adult learners. Employing a survey research design, this study uses three

types of data to answer the research questions: student demographic characteristics,

student perceptions of the IEP (such as experiences with a program mentor), and student

perceptions of the college (for example, friendships that continue from IEP to college),

1. What is the relationship between international students’ academic

experiences in IEPs and their academic adjustment as matriculated college

students?

2. What is the relationship between international students’ social experiences

in IEPs and their social adjustment as matriculated college students?

3. What is the relationship between international students’ IEP experiences,

their social and academic adjustment as matriculated college students, and

their intent to graduate from their respective colleges?

This chapter begins with a description of the pilot study used to develop the

survey, followed by the sampling rationale and procedures; description of the sample;

measures used to operationalize and assess social adjustment, academic adjustment, and

66

English language gains attributed to time spent in an IEP; the operational definitions of

the variables used in this study; the procedures for data collection and data analysis, and a

review of key limitations and delimitations.

Pilot study

I conducted a two-phase pilot study because the survey for this study included (a)

items that had not been tested on an international adult learner population (i.e., the Social

Provisions Scale and the Course efficacy scale, reviewed below); (b) a measure of

English language development that was created for this study; and (c) questions I had

created to gather demographic- and IEP-related data. The purpose of phase one was to

generate data from a similar cohort as the respondents who would complete the survey

for the primary study. These data would be used to conduct exploratory factor analysis on

the English language gains attributed to IEP. The second phase was a focus of group

comprised of survey respondents from phase one of this pilot study. Both pilot study

phases were conducted in June, 2015. Participants were either current, higher-level IEP

students in the program where I work or former students from this program who had

completed their studies in the previous spring semester.

Phase one was carried out by emailing the aforementioned students a link to the

Qualtrics survey I created and intended to use for the primary study. Participants were

asked to answer survey items and consider their comprehensibility. The benefits of this

first phase were the opportunity to evaluate the average length of time participants

needed to complete the survey, and to generate discussion questions for phase two, the

focus group. In total, 70 current and former IEP students completed the phase one survey.

67

Because these students had not matriculated to either undergraduate or graduate

studies, there were limitations to phase one pilot study data. The most salient limitation

was that the measures for academic adjustment and social adjustment (the Course

Efficacy subscale, and the Social Provisions Scale, respectively) were intended to

measure adjustment in the first semester of undergraduate or graduate study. None of the

participants in phase one had begun their first semester of study beyond the IEP. Without

valid responses for these measures, these data could not be used later to determine their

reliability. I considered recruiting a different population for phase one of the pilot study:

former IEP students who had completed their first year of undergraduate or graduate

study. However, because the pilot study was conducted in early summer, I had concerns

regarding participants’ ability to reflect on their first semester of study (typically fall) and

their experiences in an IEP before matriculating.

For the second phase of the pilot study, I recruited six students who had

completed the survey from phase one. We met two weeks after the first phase was

completed. The focus group provided a forum to address participants’ concerns,

questions, or comments about the survey format, structure, and comprehensibility. In

addition, I solicited feedback for any items or questions that seemed impolite or culturally

insensitive.

As a result of the pilot study, I changed the wording of items, the survey length,

and the organization of survey content. Before distributing the survey for the primary

study, I had several meetings with a statistical consultant. As a result of these

conversations I decided to revise the items in the English language gains scale to create

more parsimonious, interrelated subscales for each of the four language skills (i.e.,

68

reading, writing, listening, and speaking). Consequently, any factor analysis for this scale

was unusable due to extreme variation between the English language gains items in the

pilot and those created and used in the primary survey.

Sampling rationale and procedures

With no centralized database of either current or former IEP students to reference,

I employed a snowball sampling technique to recruit study participants. I contacted

administrators at various IEPs using a popular email listserv for IEP administrators,

EnglishUSA, requesting that they forward an embedded recruitment email and survey

link to former students. Included in the email to administrators was a description of the

population of interest. Although any former IEP students could be contacted, I hoped that

administrators would forward this email and survey link to former students who met the

inclusion criteria: (a) having attended an IEP that was located on a college campus (this

was controlled by asking IEP administrators only to forward the Qualtrics survey if their

program met this criterion) and (b) being in the first semester of study at a U.S. college.

In addition, I used Facebook to contact students who had recently studied in the

IEP where I work and who were Facebook friends with me. I sent them a direct message

requesting participation if they satisfied the inclusion criteria and asked them to forward

my request for participation to any eligible friends.

Description of the sample

Participants recruited for this study were all international students studying in

colleges and universities in the United States. All 90 participants attended an IEP before

undergraduate or graduate matriculation. Participants ranged in age from 18-39 (M =

23.14, SD = 4.72); there were more participants younger than 25 (71.1%) than age 25 or

69

older (29.9%). The most frequently mentioned countries of origin were China (25.8%)

and Saudi Arabia (19.1%), followed by Brazil (10.1%). Participants from China ranged in

age from 18-32 (M = 22.01, SD = 3.22), compared to 18-30 (M = 22.35, SD = 4.03) for

Saudi participants. About one-fifth of Chinese participants were 25 years or older

(21.7%), which is less than Saudi participants (29.4%).

Women were less represented than men in the total sample (38.9% vs. 61.1%).

Among Chinese and Saudi participants, women comprised 39.1% and 35.3% of the

sample, respectively.

Other demographic data of note are life commitments often associated with adult

learner status. Relatively few participants were married (13.3%) or responsible for raising

a child (15.6%). About one-quarter (23.5%) of Saudi respondents were married,

compared to less than one percent (0.05%) of Chinese participants. Further analyses

indicated that few participants from China (8.7%) were responsible for raising a child,

which was similar to the percentage of Saudi participants (11.8%). A summary of these

descriptive statistics is included below (Table 4.1).

70

Table 4.1 Demographic Summary of Participants

(N = 90)

Survey measures and scales

In this section I review the three dependent variables, which include two measures

that were adapted for the study: The College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI), and the

Social Provisions Scale (SPS). Also described is the English Language Gains Attributed

to IEP (ELGIEP), a measure I designed for this study to determine the extent to which

participants attribute specific academic English language development to their IEPs. This

n %

China 23 25.80

Saudi Arabia 17 19.10

Brazil 9 10.10

Oman 5 5.60

Hong Kong 4 4.50

India 4 4.50

Japan 4 4.50

Countries N ≤ 3 23 25.80

Total 27 29.90

Saudi 5 29.40

Chinese 5 21.70

Total 35 38.90

Saudi 6 35.30

Chinese 9 39.10

Total 12 13.30

Saudi 4 23.50

Chinese 1 0.05

Total 14 15.50

Saudi 2 11.80

Chinese 2 8.60

Child care responsibility

Married

Age (≥ 25 years old)

Gender (Female)

Variable name

Home Country

71

section begins with an overview of the CSEI and SPS in relation to studies of college

student adjustment.

Course efficacy and social provisions in higher education. Authors testing

college impact models have often employed different measures of academic adjustment

and social adjustment (e.g., Bean & Eaton, 2000; Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, &

Hagedorn, 1999; Museus, 2014; Tinto, 1975, 1993, 2000). In this study I used the Course

Efficacy scale, a subscale of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI), and the Social

Provisions Scale (SPS) to measure adjustment. In this study, the Course Efficacy scale is

operationalized as a measure of academic adjustment. The Social Provisions Scale

represents the latent construct of social adjustment.

Both the Course Efficacy scale and the SPS have been used to measure

adjustment to college, either independently (without the presence of the other scale) or

cooperatively. Among college students, a higher Course efficacy score has been linked to

positive academic adjustment characteristics such as a higher GPA, greater mastery of

course content, and a greater chance that the student remains at their current institution

from one year to the next (i.e., retention; Gore, 2006). Some evidence also suggests that

dual-enrollment (being enrolled in credit-bearing courses before matriculation) can

increase academic efficacy before college entry (as measured by the Course Efficacy

scale) (Ozmun, 2013).

Similarly, higher scores on the SPS are associated with markers of positive social

adjustment to college, including lower scores for depression and anxiety among

international students studying in the United States (Sümer, Poyrazli, & Graheme, 2008).

For women aged 25 or older, greater social support, as measured by the SPS, has been

72

associated with enhanced student- and career-efficacy scores (broadly, the confidence to

carry out tasks related to navigating college decisions such as changing majors and

planning for a career beyond college) (Quimby & O’Brien, 2006).

The introduction to this section has been organized as a joint overview of the

CSEI and SPS. This arrangement foregrounds the interrelated nature of academic

adjustment and social adjustment central to this study. Together, these are

complementary, mutually reinforcing phenomena contributing to students’ intention to

graduate from their current college.3 Below, these measures are discussed separately,

including additional information regarding their development, validity, and reliability.

Academic adjustment: The Course Efficacy scale. To measure academic self-

efficacy, the instrument developer granted permission to use the College Self-Efficacy

Inventory (CSEI) or any of its subscales and to make minor changes to wording of the

items (Castine, personal correspondence). For this study, I used only the Course Efficacy

subscale.

The CSEI is a 20-item, self-report measure that assesses an individual’s “level of

confidence in performing various academic tasks associated with college success” (Torres

& Villarreal, 2001, p. 56). Three areas of college student experience comprise this scale:

Course Efficacy, Social Efficacy, and Roommate Efficacy. All scale items begin with the

question stem, “How confident are you that you could successfully complete the

following tasks...” Representative scale items include: “Understand your textbooks

3 Of historical note, the development of the CSEI included a pilot study using Latina/o students

transitioning to college and included the SPS to measure social support among participants

(Solberg & Villareal, 2001).

73

(Course efficacy), “Make new friends at college (Social efficacy), and “Divide chores

with others you live with” (Roommate efficacy) (Solberg et al., 1993). Participants

indicate their degree of confidence for completing each task on a 10-point scale, ranging

from low (“not confident at all” = 1) to high (“extremely confident” = 10). Participant

scores are computed by adding item responses and dividing the total value by the number

of items (Gore, 2006). A higher score on the CSEI reflects greater self-efficacy to carry

out college-level academic tasks successfully.

The CSEI was developed to measure self-efficacy for Hispanic students in college

(Solberg et al., 1993; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997). Using materials from self-help books

on success in college, the authors created a pool of 40 items related to the college

experience, which were judged independently based on the following criteria:

importance, clarity and readability, and degree to which the item embodies typical college

tasks and experience. Next, a survey using 20 of the 40 items, along with other measures

such as the multicultural stress instrument (Solberg, Valdez, Villareal, & Falk, 1991) and

measures of social support (Russell & Cutrona, 1984), was completed by 164

undergraduate students.

Results from these analyses include a high internal consistency across the three

subscales derived through Principal Components Analysis (PCA) (α = .93), with the

course/academic self-efficacy subscale alone demonstrating high internal consistency (α

= .88). Convergent and discriminant validity were each determined to be adequate, with

Course efficacy being associated with other measures adjustment and not related to non-

adjustment indexes. Results from MANOVA and ANOVA indicated no significant

difference across gender, age, and acculturation.

74

Two subsequent studies have examined the validity and predictive validity of the

CSEI (Barry & Finney, 2009; Gore, 2006). The first study suggests that the CSEI

provides no greater explanatory power than a standardized test score (ACT) for

predicting academic success (measured by GPA) in an undergraduate student’s first

semester, whereas Gore’s study indicated that a higher level of Course efficacy was

correlated to a higher GPA.

Significant but weak correlations were associated with Course efficacy at the

beginning of the first semester and GPA (r = .10, p <.05); however, this increased when

Course efficacy was measured at the end of the semester (r = .34, p <.05). Hierarchical

linear regression analyses revealed a difference between CSEI scores taken from the

beginning versus the end of the semester and an increase in variance explained in changes

in GPA. When predicting GPA in the first semester using the CSEI scores from the

beginning of the semester, there was no additional explained variance beyond the ACT

composite score. Similarly, the CSEI explained greater variance in GPA at the end of the

first, second, and third semesters (10%, 10%, and 4% respectively). These results suggest

that the CSEI has greater predictive power on GPA when measured at the end, rather than

the beginning, of a semester. Further research has confirmed the factor structure and

internal validity of the CSEI. Gore (2006) found adequate model-data fit for the course,

social, and roommate subscales, the full three factor model.

Researchers have used the CSEI subscales selectively, most commonly omitting

the Roommate efficacy subscale (Gloria & Ho, 2003; Gloria, & Robinson Kurpius, 2001;

Ramos-Sanchez & Nichols, 2007; Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). In the present

study, only the Course efficacy subscale was used as an index of academic adjustment. A

75

study of self-beliefs and successful college transfer used the Course Efficacy subscale to

measure successful academic adjustment (Jing, 2014). The results of this study show a

similar measure internal consistency (α = .84), which is similar to the level reported by

the creators of the instrument (α = .88).

The Course Efficacy subscale in the present study included six items. I revised the

wording of one item. Instead of asking respondents to rate how confident they feel to

“research a term paper,” I replaced “term paper” with the less antiquated “writing

assignment.” The Roommate Efficacy subscale, which included items such as confidence

in “dividing space in your apartment/room,” assumes that having a college dorm mate

was a novel experience. Because this experience is less applicable to adult learners, I

excluded scale items associated with this subscale. The rationale for not using the Social

efficacy subscale was a theoretical disconnect between social experiences and academic

experiences, a relationship that is central to this study. CSEI items associated with Social

Efficacy represent social interactions with roommates, professors, and classmates. These

items do not assess how social relationships provide support.

Social adjustment: The Social Provisions Scale. The Social Provisions Scale

(SPS) was created to measure perceptions of social support relative to feelings of

loneliness (Russell & Cutrona, 1984). The foundations of the SPS are located in Robert

S. Weiss’s (1974) theoretical premise that loneliness represents a deficit in meaningful

relationships in one of two domains: either emotional (i.e., a lack of intimate connection

with other persons or people) or social (i.e., a lack of integration into a group of people

who have similar interests and pursuits). Weiss suggested that relationships offer

provisions that decrease the experience of loneliness and that each provision, six in total,

76

can be mapped onto either the emotional or social dimensions of relationships. Discussed

below are the six social provisions that constitute the SPS, the possible source of this

provision, properties of the scale, and representative items for each subscale.

The six provisions of social support that comprise the SPS are Attachment, Social

Integration, Reassurance of Worth, Reliable Alliance, Guidance, and Opportunity for

Nurturance (Russell & Cutrona, 1984). In Weiss’s (1974) theory, Attachment is typically

provided by a romantic partner of a close friend with whom an individual feels “at

home”; Social Integration arises from a sense of belonging to a group or organization;

Reassurance of Worth is an affirmation of competence that is related to a specific social

role (e.g., being a student); Reliable Alliance denotes a source of support—often

tangible—regardless of mutual affection (Weiss, 1974, p. 24); Guidance references a

source of advice and helpful information; and Opportunity for Nurturance is support

given to another, typically in the dynamic of parent to child.

The SPS is a 24-item, self-report measure that assesses “the degree to which

respondents’ social relationships provide various dimensions of social support” (Cutrona

& Russell, 1987). The 24 scale items are divided evenly across the six subscales; each

subscale is intended to measure the six social provisions as theorized by Weiss (1974).

Respondents are asked to think about their current relationships with friends, family,

romantic partners, and co-workers while they complete the SPS. Selecting from a four-

point Likert scale, respondents indicate how strongly they agree with different statements

based on how they perceive support from their current social network. Possible responses

for each item are 1 (strong disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), and 4 (strongly agree). Items

77

are totaled and an average score is calculated, providing an overall score. Subscale scores

can be obtained by totaling and averaging response values for each provision of support.

Representative statements on the SPS for each subscale are: “I have close

relationships that provide me with a sense of emotional security and well-being”

(Attachment); “There are people who enjoy the same social activities I do” (Social

Integration); “There are people who admire my talents and abilities” (Reassurance of

Worth); “There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it.” (Reliable

Alliance); “There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life”

(Guidance); and “I feel personally responsible for the well-being of another person”

(Opportunity for Nurturance) (Russell & Cutrona, 1984).

To obtain a total score, all item responses are summed and averaged. A higher

score on the SPS indicates greater social support. Because this study examines the social

resources that an IEP can facilitate, I excluded this component; this is consonant with

similar studies where the focus is support received more so than support provided

(Ahumada, 2008; Holahan & Holahan, 1987; Rayner, 2013; Stevens, Ammerman,

Putnam, Van Ginkel, 2002).

Internal consistency. Using Cronbach’s alpha (α) as a measure of internal

consistency, the SPS has demonstrated adequate reliability for the individual subscales

across three populations: students in a psychology course, public school teachers, and

nurses in a military hospital (range = .65-.76). Reliability of the total score was estimated

using the linear combination of individual measures for creating a unified measure (.92;

Nunnaly, 1978).

78

Asian students studying in the United States were assessed for their perceived

levels of social support, which ranged from α .87-.94 (Lee, 2014). An intervention to ease

the transition to college used a combined SPS score and reported a coefficient alpha

of .91 (Mattanah, Ayers, Brand, & Brooks, 2010), and women with children enrolled in

an undergraduate program with and without children reported a range of scores

from .67-.75 (Quimby & O’Brien, 2004).

Convergent validity. Convergent validity was demonstrated in a study of student

transition to college and experiences of loneliness (Cutrona, 1982). Scores on the Social

integration, Guidance, and Reassurance or worth provisions significantly predicted scores

on the UCLA loneliness scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Combined, scores on

these provisions accounted for 66% of the variance in UCLA loneliness scores (Cutrona

& Russell, 1987).

Factorial validity. Using data from three previous studies (see above), the SPS

developers conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm that the instrument

items (a) converged on the six sub-factors as demonstrated through previous analyses of

construct validity (first-order) and (b) supported a unidimensional or global model of

social support (second-order). Item loadings were statistically significant and sizeable

(range = .549-.990), suggesting the individual scale items represent their intended

provision. Goodness of fit was determined using the “target coefficient” or T coefficient

(Marsh & Hocevar, 1985), which supports the existence of a second-order factor allowing

for collinearity.

Intent to persist. To measure a participant’s intent to graduate from his or her

current college, a self-report item was included in the survey. This item is not intended to

79

measure persistence—a trend over time—but a respondent’s evaluation of his or her

intent to persist at the time of completing the survey for this study. Participants were

asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following statement, “I see myself

graduating from this institution.” Responses were recorded on a 7-item Likert-type

continuum, ranging from strongly disagree (-3), disagree (-2), somewhat disagree (-1),

neither disagree nor agree (0), somewhat agree (1), agree (2), and strongly agree (3).

Scores were standardized to the mean for this analysis.

Below two variables calculated for this study are reviewed below, these are

assessments of English language proficiency. First is the Average test score, a combined,

averaged score using values for the TOEFLibt, TOEFLpbt, or the IELTS. This is followed

by some additional information about the test of English Language Gains in an IEP,

including scoring.

Average test score. Students who enroll in IEPs often do so because their English

language proficiency test scores on exams such as the Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL) and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) do

not meet the entry requirements for an undergraduate or graduate course of study. An IEP

may offer courses in test preparation to help students achieve a passing test score or an

IEP may have an arrangement with their host institution (college), whereby student

completion of IEP coursework is equivalent to a passing test score. Regardless of an

IEP’s relationship with tests such as the TOEFL or IELTS, these exams are of interest for

scholars who study the TOEFL or IELTS. Of interest is the role of the TOEFL and IELTS

as gatekeepers to colleges in the United States, specifically, the reliability and validity of

these tests as predictor of future academic success. To date, studies measuring the TOEFL

80

or IELTS as a predictor of future academic success have yielded mixed results (Arcuino,

2013; Graham, 1987; Light, Xu, Mossop, 1987). This ambiguity holds true for students

who have taken the IELTS and attended an IEP (Elder & O’Loughlin, 2003; Heitner,

Hoekje, & Braciszewski, 2011).

A single test score was created for this study. This was necessary for two reasons.

First, there are different TOEFL formats: paper-based (pbt) or internet-based (ibt). Each

has a different scoring system and both are accepted at many institutions. The IELTS also

has a different scoring system. Second, my survey respondents often reported multiple

scores (for example, a score for the paper-based TOEFL and an IELTS score). A

conversion table was created using available materials provided by the Educational

Testing Service (ETS), which developed and administers the TOEFL exams, and

available published scholarly reports. The conversion table for the average test score is

located in Appendix A

English language gains attributed to IEP. The English language gains scale is a

23-item self-report scale that I developed for this study. Twenty items began with the

question stem, “Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements

about how well the IEP(s) helped to improve these specific skills in English…” These 20

items are further organized by subscales related to listening (4 items); reading (4 items);

speaking (5 items); and writing (4 items). Additional scale items were 3 related to

technology-related skills (4 items) and one item each for grammar and vocabulary. The

grammar and vocabulary items were preceded by a different question stem, “Please

indicate how strongly you agree that your experiences in the IEP(s) helped to improve

these things…” For each of the twenty-three items on the scale, respondents were

81

presented with a 7-point Likert scale; possible responses were strongly disagree (-3),

disagree (-2), somewhat disagree (-1) neutral (0), somewhat agree (1), agree (2), and

strongly agree (3).

Representative items for these subscales are: “understand the main idea in

lectures” (listening), “identify supporting details in a text” (reading), “speak in small

group activities in class (for example, paraphrase another speaker’s words, disagree with

another student, describe an idea to the group)” (speaking); “write in different genres (for

example, compare & contrast, narrative writing, research paper” (writing); and “use word

processing programs (for example, Microsoft Word)” (technology).

The scoring of this scale is discussed in the exploratory factor analyses portion of

Chapter 5. Although factor analyses (discussed below) did not result in the anticipated, 4

factor structure; I intended for the listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar, and

vocabulary scores to be used as a total score of English language gains attributed to time

in IEP. Items for each subscale were to be summed and averaged for a final score, and a

higher score on the ELGIEP would reflect the respondent’s belief that the IEP helped to

develop linguistic proficiency to successfully accomplish college-level academic tasks.

The partitioning of these skills along the language modalities of listening,

speaking, reading, and writing stems from the language research of Lado (1961).4 Lado

differentiated between language skills and components of knowledge (Bachman, 1990).

The former includes reading, writing, listening, and speaking; the latter encompasses

grammar and vocabulary (Bachman, 1990; Isaacs, 2014; Purpura, 2004). The technology

4 Interestingly, Lado followed Fries as the second director of the English Language Institute at the

University of Michigan, which was discussed in Chapter 2 (Bachman, 1990).

82

questions on the ELGIEP scale were exploratory in scope. They were intended to

determine the extent to which international students believe their IEP helped them to

learn technologies such as computer programs and course management systems that are

often used to carry out course work at the college level.

Before presenting the research models and variables selected for examining

participants’ experiences adjusting to college. I then direct the readers’ attention to Figure

4, which provides the names of each variable, and sample survey items for measures used

in this study. an overview of the names of variables and what they adjustment to college

after attending an IEP

83

Figure 4 Study variables, descriptions, and sample Items

Procedures

In this section I describe the process of participant recruitment and the statistical

analysis selected to address the research questions of this study.

Variable label Description Sample item (positively keyed)

Independent Variables

Control Variables

country_Chinaa Respondent is from China

country_Saudi_Arabiaa Respondent is from Saudi Arabia

gender_womana Respondent indicated "Woman" as sex

adult_learnera,b Respondent satisifies one or multiple characteristics: ≥

25 years old, is married, has children

IEP Variables

score_TOEFL_IELTSb Highest reported IELTS or TOEFL, score calculated to

a common score

My highest IELTS score was _____

score_elgiepb Score on the English Language Gains Attributed to IEP

measure

The IEP(s) I attended helped me to understand the

main idea in a lecture

had_mentora Respondent had a mentor in IEP

dual_enrolleda Respondent took for-credit, non IEP courses while

attending IEP

score_how_many_social How many IEP-sponsored social events attended I attended _____ IEP-sponsored social events

score_how_socialb How social respondent was outside of the IEP I was very social outside the IEP when I studied

there same_campus

a Respondent attended IEP on current college campus

College Variables

family_at_samea Family member currently studying at the same college

standing_graduatea Respondent is a graduate student

still_friendsa Respondent is still friends with former IEP classmates

Dependent Variables

Academic Adjustment

score_course-efficacyb Respondent's score on the Course Efficacy scale I am confident I can do well on my exams

Social Adjustment

score_SPSb Respondent's score on the Social Provisions Scale There are people I can depend on to help me if I

really need it

Intent to Persist

score_intent_to_persistb Respondent's score on Persist to graduation scale I see myself eventually graduating from my current

college

Note: aRepresents a categorical variable (1, 0),

bRepresents a transformed variable

84

Participant recruitment. A cursory review of survey implementation was

provided above. This section elaborates on the distribution of the survey and the

recruitment emails. Data collection for the primary study began in fall, 2015. In total,

three posts were submitted to the EnglishUSA listserv soliciting help from administrators

at IEPs. Listserv members were asked to forward the recruitment email message to any

former students who were, or were likely to be, studying in their first semester in a U.S.

college or university. The embedded email included a link for the Qualtrics survey.

During this time, I attended a conference for professionals in our field and asked board

members of both EnglishUSA and UCIEP (the consortium for campus-governed IEPs)

for assistance with distributing and promoting my call for participants. I tried several

times to contact representatives from organizations similar to EnglishUSA, but was

unable to enlist their support. A final step in participant recruitment via IEP

administrators was to send them an email asking if they could distribute the survey.

Two additional recruitment strategies were used. First, I messaged former IEP

students via Facebook.com. I solicited their participation (if they were eligible for the

study) and/or asked if they could forward an embedded message with a link to the

Qualtrics survey to friends who might fit the criteria for participation. Second, when

participants were sent their $10 Amazon.com gift card, they received a “thank you”

message with a request to forward the survey invitation and link. The recruitment email

included the following information: purpose of the research study, possible benefits of

participation, assurance of anonymity, anticipated length of time to complete the survey,

compensation ($10 Amazon.com gift card, entry in a raffle to win a $100 Amazon.com

gift card), the option to quit the survey at any time without penalty, and my contact

85

information if the student had any questions, comments, or concerns. To ensure that a

participant met the inclusion parameters, three initial items in the survey screened for

participants who were (a) younger than 18, (b) not enrolled in a college or not enrolled in

a college in the United States, or (c) not in their first semester of study. Failure to meet

the age and college enrollment criteria took the participant to an exit screen where they

were thanked for their participation.

The design of this model was inspired by college impact models of persistence

and retention, which posit that the social and the academic worlds overlap, interact, and

influence one another (Bean & Eaton, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Robbins,

Lauver et al., 2004; Tinto, 1975, 1993).

Analyses. To analyze the relationships between attending an IEP and social and

academic adjustment, a separate hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) model was

created to examine each outcome. HMR is a theoretically-driven model in which groups

of variables are entered according to their anticipated influence on the outcome or

criterion variable. Another statistical technique that uses a blocked regression method is

stepwise regression, wherein variables are entered to determine their relevance in the

absence of theory. Initial variables entered are typically background or demographic

characteristics. Regression is conducted to determine how much of the unique variance is

explained by this block of variables. Subsequent blocks are added and each time the

amount of additional variance explained above and beyond the initial and subsequent

blocks are determined. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is run with HMR and allows the

researcher to determine the influence of individual variables to the total model. A

common error is to trace the influence of a variable at different stages and to report the

86

findings for each variable. Only the influence of variables in the total or whole model is

relevant. If a variable loses significance at any point, this is worth noting to examine

suppression effects or to consider in future studies. Below are the HMR models for this

study, presented in the same sequence as the research questions. To aid the reader in

visualizing the components of each model, I provide the variables for each analysis.

Academic adjustment model.

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between international students’ academic

experiences in IEPs and their academic adjustment as matriculated college students?

Table 4.2 The Academic Adjustment Model for Former IEP Students

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Dependent Variable

adult_learner score_elgiep standing_graduate

country_China score_TOEFL_IELTS still_friends score_course-efficacy

country_Saudi

Arabia

same_campus

dual_enrolled

had_mentor

87

Social adjustment model.

Research question 2: What is the relationship between international students’ social

experiences in IEPs and their social adjustment as matriculated college students?

Table 4.3 The Social Adjustment Model for Former IEP Students

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Dependent

Variable

gender_woman score_elgiep standing_graduate

adult_learner same_campus family_at_same score_SPS

country_China score_how_many_social still_friends

country_Saudi

Arabia

score_how_social

Intent to persist model.

Research question 3: What is the relationship between international students’ IEP

experiences, their social and academic adjustment as matriculated college students, and

their intent to graduate from their respective colleges?

Table 4.4 The Intent to Persist Model for Former IEP Students

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Dependent

Variable

gender_woman score_elgiep

adult_learner had_mentor score_SPS score_intent to

persist

country_China same_campus score_course-

efficacy

country_Saudi Arabia score_how_many_social

Before I present the results of these analyses, I conclude this chapter with a review of the

limitations and delimitations of this study.

88

Limitations

The findings should be interpreted in the light of several limitations. First, the use

of convenience (snowball) sampling limits the findings’ generalizability to the population

of adult international students who have attended an IEP. Convenience sampling may also

have increased response bias. Specifically, participants who had favorable IEP

experiences or who felt indebtedness toward the program or a program representative

may have been more likely to respond to the survey. To this point, I asked a classroom of

students whom I was teaching at the time of the pilot study (students who would not be

included in this study) what type of compensation would seem appropriate for completing

a survey. An outspoken student said that the monetary value of any compensation would

not affect his participation or non-participation, but that he would do it “as a favor” for a

teacher he liked. This underscores the problem of non-representativeness. If students who

only had a favorable experience in an IEP respond, the data are more likely to be skewed

in one direction and therefore not indicative of all students’ experiences.

The sample size is another limitation. When I proposed this dissertation topic, a

power analysis was conduct to determine a suitable sample size. Due to revision and

recalculation, the recommended sample size has grown. Although more than 200 former

IEP students responded, data cleaning and listwise deletion reduced this number to less

than 100. This may negatively affect the normality of data in the regression models.

Finally, hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) is a correlational method and as

such, the results should not be read as causal (Huck, 2015).

89

Delimitations

The experiences of former IEP students now attending a U.S. college or university

is understudied. For adult learners within this population, the body of research is non-

existent. This study spans multiple fields of research and draws on empirical research to

study adjustment experiences. However, due to the relatively small sample size, variables

of interest created from the survey data were left out of the final regression models.

Survey length, challenges with participant recruitment, and an interest in the core

questions addressed in this study prevented the measurement of other constructs. I

recommend that these could be addressed in future research.

First, the present study does not examine the use of social media and information

and communications technologies (ICTs) as media for communication and accessing

social support across geographic distance. Platforms such as WhatsApp, Snapchat, and

WeChat allow international students to stay in touch with their friends and family at

almost no cost. Because of the ubiquity of ICTs and their ability to connect people at any

time, extensive research has been conducted on their role in providing social support

digitally (e.g., Kraut, Lundmark, Patterson, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998;

Shaw & Gant, 2004; Ye 2006). Although the majority of research into ICTs supports their

utility for providing social support and mitigating loneliness (Oh, Ozkaya, & Larose,

2014; Shaw & Gant, 2004), some studies suggest ICTs may be more useful for

instrumental rather than emotional support (Trepte, Dienlin, & Reinecke, 2013) or may

have minimal association with academic, social, and emotional adjustment to college

(Lee, 2011). To capture these data in a future study, the question stem for this survey

should not exclude people beyond participants’ current town or city.

90

Researchers have also examined college students’ online social networks,

including the characteristics of relationships within these networks, and how different

types of relationships provide greater access to social capital or social support (Ellison,

Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Li, & Chen, 2014; Park, Song & Lee, 2014). Within these

studies, an area of interest has been the interplay between frequency of interactions on

social networking sites, such as Facebook, and social adjustment (Vitak, Ellison, &

Steinfield, 2011; Wright, Rosenberg, Egbert, Ploeger, Bernard, & King, 2013). Findings

relevant to the present study suggest that sites such as Facebook can help maintain

relationships from afar, provided these relationships were established offline first

(Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Li, & Chen, 2014). For international students on the

same campus, the maintenance of on-campus relationships through social networking

sites can promote social adjustment to the campus environment, (Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim, &

LaRose, 2012). Finally, frequent interaction with co-national students on sites such as

Facebook may enhance an international student’s affiliation with their college (Lin et al.,

2012). A future area of research might include testing the similarity of this connection to

a college or university, and Tinto’s institutional commitment (1975, 1993). In his revised

student departure model, Tinto posited that social and academic integration into the

college environment enhance a student’s commitment to their institution, which then

leads to greater persistence to graduate.

Because IEP students do not always matriculate to an undergraduate or graduate

program on the same campus as their IEP, the types of support international students

receive from former IEP classmates, or friends made outside the program while studying

91

in an IEP, merit greater attention. ICT-mediated support, however, is outside the scope of

the present study.

Second, a study design comparing the college adjustment experiences of

international adult learners who have attended an IEP compared to those who did not

would be informative and could support or challenge the findings of this study. I did not

include this population due to concerns about participant recruitment from multiple sites

and limited resources for compensating participants.

Additional adult learner attributes. The decision to exclude certain attributes

associated with adult learner status is another delimitation. Although a comprehensive,

undisputed collection of adult learner characteristics does not exist, commonly

investigated traits include age (≥ 25 years old), marital status, parental obligations, first-

generation student status, employment status, part-time student enrollment, and financial

independence. Age, marital status, and parental obligations were included in the present

study (see Chapter 3). Data on first-generation student status, employment, and financial

independence were collected, but not used in the statistical analyses. Part-time student

enrollment was not considered due to the visa status of many international students,

which precludes part-time enrollment.

I included marital status rather than being married or having a “significant other”

for the following reasons. During the pilot study I asked participants for feedback on any

items that were potentially insensitive, culturally irrelevant, or difficult to understand.

The pilot study participants were adequately representative—in age, linguistic ability,

cultural background, and national origin—of the anticipated survey respondents for the

primary study. There was little agreement that “significant other” meant a romantic

92

relationship, and that a romantic relationship can carry the same or similar goal

orientations, relationship expectations, and degree of commitment as a marriage, this was

not agreed upon by the pilot study participants. The ensuing conversation led me exclude

the survey item, “significant other.” Data were collected regarding romantic relationships

and cohabitation, but I was concerned that linguistic and cultural differences may cause

misinterpretation of question intent, and consequently, that this would affect the

interpretation of results. By not including other definitions of romantic cohabitation,

however, this study may exclude significant sources of support comparable to those

found in a marriage.

Similarly, employment and financial independence were excluded from the final

analyses. Many students from Arab Gulf states—particularly Saudi Arabia—attend IEPs

and then college on government sponsorships. Sponsorship for Gulf state students entails

a commitment to work for a student’s national government upon return. In this way, the

definition of employment is imprecise. Many of the sponsored students I know have

considered their sponsorship—a source for financial support—as employment. The

nature of their contracts, obligating them to work for their governments after graduation,

explains this interpretation of employment. Relatedly, I suspected that financial

independence, a common adult learner attribute, could be misconstrued by respondents.

Summary

This chapter described the study participants, recruitment procedures and

rationale, the measures and variables used in this study, the plan for data analysis, and the

93

study’s limitations and delimitations. In the next chapter, I review the procedures

conducted to run the three separate HMR analyses and discuss the results of each model.

94

Chapter 5

RESULTS

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between international

adult learners who have attended an Intensive English Program (IEP) in the United States

and their adjustment to college afterward. Consistent with the theoretical framework of

this study, both academic and social adjustment were measured. Independently, academic

and social adjustment may influence a student’s intention to graduate from his or her

current school; however, when examined together these phenomena can exert greater

influence on intent to persist until graduation.

Academic adjustment, social adjustment, and intent to persist until graduation

from the participants’ current college were the dependent variables of interest in this

study. A separate analysis for each dependent variable was conducted using hierarchical

multiple regression models (HMR). Results of these analyses revealed three notable

patterns. First, demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, being from China) and IEP

attributes (e.g., English language gains attributed to IEP, having a mentor) were the

variables most significantly associated—positively or negatively—with academic

adjustment, social adjustment, or both. Second, neither the participants’ experiences as

matriculated college students (e.g., graduate student status, having friendships that

continued from time in IEP to present time) nor being an adult learner were significantly

related to academic adjustment, social adjustment, or intent to persist.

In this chapter I provide additional demographic characteristics of the sample.

Next, I review the results of factor analyses that were conducted to develop or validate

95

measures of academic adjustment, social adjustment, and English language gains

attributed to the IEP. This is followed by a report of tests of assumptions conducted on

measures used in this study. Finally, I detail the results of all three regression models.

Description of the Sample

The 93 participants in this study all attended an IEP in the United States and were

studying in their first semester of college (also in the United States) at the time of data

collection (October-November, 2015). In many ways, this was a diverse sample. In total,

25 different countries were reported and participants were attending 29 different colleges

and universities. The institutional characteristics of participants’ college or university

were similarly diverse in size (enrollments ranging from less than 6,000 to almost

50,000); geographic location (as different as Chicago and Hawaii); and religious

affiliation (including no religious affiliation, Roman Catholic, and Mennonite). These

response ranges appear to be relatively broad, especially relative to the sample size of this

study. However, the number of countries of origin represented by four or fewer

participants was 21 (87.5% of all respondents); and the number of institutions represented

by four or fewer participants was 25 (86.2% of all respondents). The shortcomings of an

even distribution of responses for these data are discussed in Chapter 6.

Additional demographic information about the participants is located in Table 5.1.

The variables in this table are used in the different hierarchical regression models in this

study. The adult learner variable was created through data transformation in SPSS. A

participant who met any of the following criteria was reclassified as an adult learner:

being 25 years of age, having childcare responsibilities, and/or being married. Total

counts for the number of participants who met at least one of these criteria are listed

96

below other demographic data. It is interesting to note that, 7 participants satisfied all

three criteria for adult learner status, whereas no students under 25 years of age were both

married, and had caregiving responsibilities.

For ease of readability additional scores for measures of note are displayed

separately in Table 5.2. These scores are presented here because they either (a) represent

a variable in at least one regression model in this study (e.g., participant’s score on the

Course Efficacy scale) or (b) help to provide context for student demographics in and

across IEPs (e.g., the amount of time spent in IEPs).

The sample size (N = 93) reported in Table 5.1 and the counts reported in Table

5.2 reflect the number of cases (participants) retained after initial data cleaning. Sample

sizes for each model are different due to missing data or outlier case deletion.

97

Table 5.1 Additional Demographic Information of Study Participants (N = 93)

N %

40 43.0

36 38.7

18 19.4

23 24.7

72 77.4

28 30.1

47 50.5

26 26.0

13 14.0

82 88.2Still friends

Family also at same college

Academic level: Graduate

China

IEP on same campus

Dual enrolled

Had a mentor

Characteristic

Adult learner(a)

Women

Saudi Arabia

Dual enrolled = While in IEP, took classes with undergradate or graduate students

Family also at same college = Participant has family member(s) attending the

same college

Had a mentor = While in IEP, participant had a mentor

Still friends = Still friends with people met during time in IEP

n

Age ≥ 25 28

Married 13

Caregiving 14

Age ≥ 25 & Married 5

Age ≥ 25 & Caregiving 1

Married & Caregiving 0

Age ≥ 25 & Married & Caregiving 7

Variables

(a) Represents a transformed variable

Number Adult Learner by Criterion/Critera Met

98

Table 5.2 Means for Model Measures and Measures of Note (N = 93)

Sample Scores

Before variable transformation and factor analyses, scores for specific subgroups

within the larger sample were noted. These groups (adult learners, women, students from

China, and students from Saudi Arabia) are subpopulations of interest in this study, and

are the first variables entered into the regression equations, which are discussed near the

end of this chapter. Scores for select measures are reported in Table 5.3 below. Each of

these measure scores—English language gains attributed to IEP, Course Efficacy, Social

Provisions, and Intent to persist or graduate—are measured using a Likert-type scale on

the survey. Ranges vary for these measures, as do the number of possible responses for

each.

Count Mean Range Min Max SD

93 1.70 1-10 1.00 9.00 1.42

92 9.60 0-24 0.00 24.00 6.16

93 4.90 1-31 1.00 31.00 5.75

88 6.14 4.50-8.50 4.50 8.50 0.74

93 4.54 1-7 1.00 7.00 1.62

93 5.50 3.24-7.00 3.24 7.00 1.00

93 7.55 2.17-10.00 2.17 8.50 1.44

93 3.87 2.45-5.00 2.45 5.00 0.56

score_elgiep

score_TOEFL_IELTS

score_how_social

score_course-efficacy

(a) represents a measure that is not included for anlysis in the present study

(b) number of IEPs attended in the last two years

(c) calculated in months

score_how_many_social = How many IEP-sponsored social events participant attended

score_SPS = participant self-report of available social provisions

score_course-efficacy = participant self-report of confidence completing academic task

score_elgiep = participant score on ELGIEP test (English language gains attributed to IEP)

score_TOEFL_IELTS = participant test score on TOEFL or IELTS

score_how_social = participant self-report how social he or she was outside of IEP

score_SPS

Measure

number of IEPs attended(a)(b)

length of time in IEPs(a)(c)

how_many_social

99

Table 5.3 Scores on English Language Gains Attributed to IEP, Course Efficacy, Social

Provisions, and Intent to Graduate for Populations of Interest (N = 93)

In general, all subgroups, populations of interest in this study, reported similar

mean scores on these measures as the participants they were compared to. Additionally,

scores were similar across all subgroups examined. On average, participants’ responses

indicated agreement with statements on the following measures: English language gains

attributed to IEP, the Social Provisions Scale, and intent to persist. This suggests that for

these participants, there was broad agreement that their respective IEPs helped them to

develop English language abilities across listening, speaking, reading, and writing

modalities. Scale items for the English language gains attributed to IEP that are all related

to college-level academic tasks such as taking notes, skimming a text, and writing in

M SD M SD M SD SD

adult_learner 5.59 0.96 7.75 1.47 3.88 0.59 0.17 0.83

nonadult_learner 5.42 0.99 7.59 1.23 3.87 0.51 -0.05 1.07

woman 5.38 1.12 7.42 1.35 4.06 0.48 0.15 0.85

man 5.56 0.89 7.69 1.31 3.75 0.54 -0.03 1.05

China 5.28 1.04 7.27 1.16 4.04 0.39 -0.04 1.03

reference 5.56 0.96 7.69 1.37 3.82 0.57 0.19 0.92

Saudi Arabia 5.74 0.87 8.25 1.36 3.75 0.69 0.28 0.90

reference 5.43 1.00 7.43 1.28 3.9 0.50 -0.02 0.99

score_elgiep 1 (strongly disagree ) - 7 (strongly agree )

score_course-efficacy 1 (not at all confident ) - 10 (extremely confident )

score_SPS 1 (stronly disagree ) - 5 (strongly agree )

score_intent to graduate -3 (strongly disagree ) - 3 (strongly agree )

Note: For China and Saudi Arabia, "reference" is all other countries of origin

M

score_

intent_to_persist

Range: -3 - +3

Anchors for scales are

score_elgiep

Range: 1 - 7

score_

course-efficacy

Range: 1 - 10

score_SPS

Range: 1-5

100

different academic genres. Participants’ scores on the Social provisions scale, averaged

across their respective subgroup, indicates agreement with statements measuring the

types and availability of social support for these participants. Interestingly, participants’

scores for intent to graduate were neutral for all groups. The average score for each

subgroup reflected neither agreement nor disagreement with the statement asking if they

saw themselves graduating from their current college or university. Finally, scores for

Course Efficacy reflect a somewhat high level of confidence in completing academic

tasks. Measured on a Likert-type scale using a range of 1-10, scores were generally high

(adult learners, M = 7.57; women, M = 7.42; from China, M = 7.27; from Saudi Arabia,

M = 8.25).

Scores for all of these measures were standardized for ease of readability. This is

accomplished by subtracting the mean from the raw score, and then dividing this number

by the standard deviation. Differences are then measured using standard deviations,

rather than the original measure values (e.g., strongly agree, neither agree nor disagree)

(DiStefano, Zhu, & Mindrila, 2009; Gelman, 2007). Additional information related to

standardized scores is included in the discussion on factor analysis below.

Factor Analysis

To determine if constructs of English language gains (attributed to IEP), social

provisions, and course efficacy were adequately represented by the scales and subscales

used in this study, I conducted several factor analyses. Factor analyses is useful to

determine the interrelationships between different scale items assumed to be

manifestations of latent constructs. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for

the English language gains attributed to IEP, and confirmatory factor Analysis (CFA)

101

was performed on the data for the Social Provisions Scale (SPS) (Cutrona & Russell,

1987), and the Course Efficacy subscale of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI)

(Solberg, O’Brien, Villarreal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993).

Factor analysis can assist in the evaluation of correlations across the measures

being analyzed to determine if they represent the anticipated latent construct(s) being

studied (Fabriagar & Wegener, 2011). In other words, in this study I anticipated that

factor analyses would indicate that the English language gains attributed to IEP, Social

Provisions Scale, and Course Efficacy subscale, measure what they are intended to

measure. Exploratory factor analysis was used with the data from English language gains

attributed to IEP, which was created for the purposes of this study. Exploratory factor

analysis is useful when the number of factors is not assumed and as a data reduction

technique, indicating which scale items do not significantly load onto any of the extracted

factors (Garson, 2013). This justifies the removal of this specific survey item on the

grounds that it doesn’t significantly relate to the latent construct(s) under investigation,

and will reduce the survey length as a result. Detail on the different factor analyses

conducted for this study are discussed below.

I began factor analysis procedures using the statistical software package SPSS

(version 23.0). However, the majority of the factor analysis procedures, including the

generation of polychoric correlation matrices, data extraction, rotation of the factors, and

parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to retain, were completed using the

FACTOR 9.2 program (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006). The justifications for the

methods of extraction and rotation and the method selected to determine the number of

variables to retain, are discussed below.

102

Exploratory Factor Analysis. Factor analysis began with an examination of the

descriptive data for each item in the English language gains attributed to IEP measure. I

checked for irregularities and coding errors before data extraction, rotation, and the

selection of factors to retain.

Factor analysis procedures. To determine the factor structure of the English

language gains attributed to IEP scale, I used principal axis factoring with an Oblimin

rotation. This initial attempt resulted in an ultra-Heywood case. Although common,

Heywood cases render a factor solution unusable and must be addressed (Kolenikov &

Bollen, 2010). Ultra-Heywood cases can be attributed to multiple issues, though I

presumed the likely source of the error was associated with the relatively small sample

size (N = 96, at the time of factor analysis) (SAS Institute Inc., 2009). To address this

issue, I tried again using an image extraction technique rather than principle axis

factoring. Rotation method and factor retention criteria were kept the same. The results of

this analysis produced two factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Additionally, many

of the variables loaded on two of these components. These results suggested that nearly

all productive language skill variables (speaking and writing) loaded on to the same

factor, and the receptive language skill variables (reading and listening) loaded on to

another. Figure 5 presents the scale items for the English language gains attributed to IEP,

these scale items are organized by the larger construct they are meant to tap into. Initially,

the results of the factor analysis were appealing. Although I had anticipated four factors

(one each for listening, speaking, reading and writing), the factor structure held some

intuitive appeal; they followed a certain logic. Although these factors did represent the

four language modalities I had anticipated to measure, organization of language skills

103

into productive and receptive domains, as the factor structure initially appeared to

indicate, also could be supported by theory. After further investigation, however, the

results suggested an overestimation of the Eigenvalues. As a solution, I switched to using

parallel analysis as a factor retention method over Kaiser’s criteria, or scree plot

interpretation.

Figure 5 Items created for the English language gains attributed to IEP scale, organized by

language modality it is intended to measure.

• take notes (for example during a lecture, while another student or the teacher is speaking,

while listening to a recording of someone speaking)

• understand the main ideas in lectures

• understand supporting information in lectures

• understand unknown vocabulary through context during a lecture

• use strategies to give a presentation in class (for example, not reading too much from notes,

add information to presentation slides so they are easy to read, invite questions from the

speak in class (for example, ask the teacher a question about a homework assignment,

answer a question asked by another student)

• speak in group activities (for example, paraphrase another speaker’s words, disagree with

another student, describe an idea to the group)

• speak with a teacher outside of class (for example, during office hours)

• speak with another student outside of class (for example, during a break in class)

• skim a text

• scan a text

• identify the main ideas in a text

• identify supporting ideas in a text

• use appropriate formatting for my writing assignments (for example, adding page numbers,

charts, graphs, a bibliography, when necessary)

• avoid plagiarism in my various writing assignments (for example, use in text citations, use

quotes, use strategies for paraphrasing)

• use supporting details for the main ideas in my writing

• write in different genres (for example, compare & contrast, narrative writing, research

Note All question stems begin, "My experiences in (the) IEP(s) helped to improve my ability to do the

following things in English…"

Subscale and Component Items

Listening

Speaking

Reading

Writing

104

Because SPSS does not currently allow for parallel analysis, the statistical

program FACTOR (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006) was used. Additional features

available in FACTOR include polychoric and tetrachoric correlation matrices. The

rationale for using polychoric correlation matrices and PA in the factor analyses in this

study are discussed below.

Parallel analysis works as a factor retention in the following way: Random data

are generated by the software program relative to the size and rank of the actual variables

under analysis. Eigenvalues of the factors created by the researcher’s data that are higher

than the mean Eigenvalues produced using random data may be retained (Ledesma &

Valero-Mora, 2007; Zwick & Velicer, 1986). Parallel analysis is generally held in high

regard as one of the best factor retention strategies (Garson, 2013; Glorfeld, 1995;

Velicer, Eaton, & Fava, 2000).

For extraction, unweighted least squares (ULS) was used. This extraction method

is beneficial when data are not normally distributed (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994;

Widaman, 1995). Additionally, one of the creators of the FACTOR program suggests that

ULS is best suited for both nonnormal data and matrices derived from polychoric

relationships (Ferrando & Urdano-Seva, 2014).

Polychoric correlation matrices were computed to analyze the relationships

among the variables entered for each separate factor analysis. In contrast to other

measures of correlation, the polychoric correlation assumes a continuous nature for

ordinal data and compares the data entered for analysis (ordinal) to an estimated

continuous variable extrapolated from the distribution of scores of the real data (Garson,

2013). Polychoric correlation is recommended for Likert-type items (Hogaldo-Tello &

105

Chacón–Moscoso, 2010), and for attitude measures commonly used in the social sciences

(Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2012; Hogaldo-Tello & Chacón–Moscoso, 2010; Joakim,

2011; Olsson, 1979). The attitude measures used in this study are all Likert-type and

ordinal.

The rotation method selected for all factor analyses was direct oblimin (oblique).

Although orthogonal rotation can produce more easily interpretable results by assuming

no correlation between the variables, oblique rotation permits interfactor correlation and

is encouraged in the social sciences where latent constructs are assumed to be interrelated

(Osborne & Costello, 2008; Fabrigar & Wegener, 2011). Ultimately, rotation of the

extracted factors was unnecessary because each completed analysis yielded a one-factor

solution. Instead, factor loadings and variance explained were determined by factor

loadings and levels of communality of un-rotated factors.

Factor analysis results. Following the results of a one-factor solution described

above, I conducted additional analyses. First, to estimate reliability I analyzed the of the

English language gains attributed to IEP measure by calculating Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient (α). The value of α for the data entered was .96, suggesting high internal

consistency. Although a one-factor solution was recommended for these data, I attempted

to force a factor solution. This is described below.

Although a one-factor solution was recommended, I decided to let theory guide

one last factor analysis. Forcing the number of factors is sometimes done to generate a

factor structure that aligns with the dimensions of a theoretical construct. In the present

study, the scale items for English language gains attributed to IEP measure were selected

or created according to their theorized relationship to the latent constructs of English

106

language proficiency. Following the research of Lado (1965), the four language

modalities—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—were used to measure English

language proficiency. As stated previously, there were three possible factors, though only

two factors had significant loadings. Ultimately, a four-factor solution was not accepted,

and a one-factor model was retained.

Final factor solution. The final factor analysis conducted on the English language

gains attributed to IEP followed the same methods for extraction, rotation, and factor

retention described in the preceding paragraph. However, in this final iteration of analysis

I set the number of anticipated factors in the structure to one. The change from an

anticipated four-factor structure to a one-factor structure improved the overall model: The

one factor explained a greater proportion of the variance (65.3%), and all scores loaded

onto this factor (range .589 to .798) met the minimum recommended value (see Appendix

B for outputs of these data). It is not possible to rotate a one-factor model; therefore, the

unrotated factors were examined for factor loading and each met critical minimal values

(see discussion of CFA below).

Skewness and kurtosis were analyzed for the 17 ELGIEP variables by calculating

the z statistic for each item individually and collectively (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

The thresholds for when normality would be rejected were established by West, Finch,

and Curran (1995). Following these guidelines, critical alpha levels (p < .05) for the

sample size at this stage of analysis (N = 96) were set at |3.29| for both measures of

normal distribution. The results of this analysis indicated that the scores were negatively

skewed (-4.105) but not did not suggest significant kurtosis (2.560). The variable with the

highest degree of skewness corresponded to the survey item, “My experiences in (the)

107

IEP(s) helped to improve my ability to do the following things in English: identify the

main ideas in a text” (degree of skewness = -5.235). Because multiple regression is robust

to violations of normality (Pedhazur, 1997), all items were retained.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the selected subscale(s) of the

Social Provisions Scale (SPS) and the Course Self-Efficacy subscale of the College Self-

Efficacy Inventory (CSEI). The extraction method, criteria for number of variables to

retain, and the degree to which items loaded on to the identified factors followed the final

factor analysis conducted for the English language gains attributed to IEP data discussed

above (using the FACTOR software program). Below, the SPS factor analysis is

reviewed followed by a summary of the factor analysis performed on the Course efficacy

subscale of the CSEI.

Social Provisions Scale (SPS). Confirmatory factor analysis for the Social

Provisions Scale yielded a one-factor solution. The individual subscales of this

instrument (Reassurance of Worth, Reliable Alliance, Social Integration, Attachment, and

Guidance) did not load onto an anticipated five-factor model. The authors of the scale

state that due to the inter-relatedness of the items, they “may covary as a function of

individuals, thereby obscuring their separateness” (Cutrona & Russell, 1987, p. 38).

Gottleib and Bergen (2010) observed high correlations among the five sources of social

support used in this study, but less so with the source of support not included in this study

(Reassurance of Worth) (r = .70 to .99 & r = .56 to .64, respectively) (p. 518).

The variance explained by the one factor (48.2 %), as well as the factor loadings

(range: .435 to .740) and variance explained by each item (range .189 to .546) satisfied

108

the required ranges applied in this study. Cronbach’s alpha (α) was calculated for the 20

items of the Social Provisions Scale, which yielded an alpha coefficient of .92. Next, a z-

score was computed to measure the significance of skewness and kurtosis. The same

values used for measuring skewness and kurtosis for the English language gains

attributed to IEP data were applied here. That is, any measures of skewness and/or

kurtosis > |3.29|, would be categorized as non-normal. The distribution was not kurtotic

for SPS (range 0.16 to 3.15); however, there was significant negative skewness (9 of the

20 items exceed -3.29, with the largest value at -4.72). All items were retained for use in

this study.

Course Efficacy Scale. In contrast to the two other factor analyses conducted in

these study, multidimensionality was not anticipated in the factor structure. Course

Efficacy is one component within the larger College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI).

Procedures before factor analysis (computing Cronbach’s alpha and calculating a z score

to determine the degrees of skewness and kurtosis) were completed in the same manner

used to assess the other scales as described above.

All items loaded significantly on the one advised variable. The total variance

explained for the one retained factor (67.1%), factor loadings for all subscale items

(range: .529 to.660), and variance explained (range: .287 to .436) fulfilled the

requirements applied to these analyses. Internal consistency (α) was observed at .83, and

measures of skewness and kurtosis were measured using the computed z-score for each

scale item. The distribution of scores was negatively skewed (range: -2.16 to -4.61), but

not kurtotic (range: -.07 to 2.76). All items constituting the Course efficacy scale were

retained for this study.

109

After factor analyses procedures had been completed, tests were conducted on the

data for the regression models. Like all statistical analyses, there are recommended data

tests for hierarchical multiple regression, intended to safeguard against invalid results.

These include tests of normality, linearity, collinearity, heteroscedasticity, and

independence of residuals.

Regression Analyses

In this section, the results of the three regression models examining academic

adjustment, social adjustment, and the effect of both social and academic adjustment as a

predictor of intent to persist are discussed. For each model, the results of assumption

testing, for each model, are discussed.

Academic adjustment. The academic adjustment model was created to answer

research question one, “What is the relationship between international students’ academic

experiences in IEPs and their academic adjustment as matriculated college students?”

To investigate the potential relationship between IEP academic experiences and

subsequent academic adjustment to the university, a hierarchical regression model was

run. In a regression model, groups of variables, or blocks, are entered sequentially to

understand the effect of each group of variables on the outcome or dependent variable,

while controlling for other blocks entered into the equation.

The first block of variables entered into the analysis were background

characteristics, or the control variables (adult learners, being from China, being from

Saudi Arabia). The second block of variables run were the experiences in IEP(s)

(participants’ highest test score on either the TOEFL or IELTS, English language gains

attributed to IEP, attending college on the same campus as the participant attended an

110

IEP, having a mentor, and being dual-enrolled). The third block was then included in the

regression analysis, (graduate student status, and having friendships that continued from

time in IEP to present time). Each block was regressed on the dependent variable, Course

Efficacy.

Assumptions tested. Hierarchical multiple regression requires that the following

assumptions be satisfied to increase the validity of the regression model: linearity,

normality, homoscedasticity, independence of residuals, the absence of leverage points or

outliers which may influence the model, and an absence of multicollinearity (Garson,

2010; Pedhazur, 1997; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

A visual analysis of the P-plot indicated a normal distribution of standardized

residual error. Homoscedasticity was also analyzed for both non-categorical variables

against the dependent variable, the standardized score for Course-Efficacy: participants’

highest test score on either the TOEFL or IELTS and English language gains attributed to

IEP (also standardized). Assumptions of homoscedasticity were met with residual errors

dispersed in a relatively equal manner near the zero values of both the x axis (the

dependent variable), and the y axis (the independent variables). The significance level for

the standardized residuals was greater than .05 (.622), indicating normal distribution. To

determine linearity, the same scatterplots were examined. Inspection of these plots

included adding a fit line to the graph to determine linearity. Linearity was established in

each case.

To satisfy the assumption of independence of residuals, the Durbin-Watson

coefficient was calculated. The range of possible values for this statistic is 0 to 4. A

111

statistic near 2 is considered acceptable (Garson, 2010; Kelly & Bolin, 2013). For this

model, the coefficient was 1.701, indicating an absence of autocorrelation.

Multicollinearity was not detected in VIF and tolerance statistics. VIF and

tolerance are reciprocal statistics (Garson, 2010), therefore reporting only one set of

values is necessary. A commonly accepted limit for VIF values is < 4.0 (Garson, 2010).

The VIF levels for this model were within acceptable levels (from 1.041 to 1.448).

To determine that no outliers or leverage points were present that could affect the

multicollinearity of the model, the Mahalanobis distance measure, Cook’s distance

measure and Centered leverage values were examined. The results of each diagnostic

indicated that outliers and high leverage points were not a major concern (Cook’s values

did not exceed 1, and centered leverage values did not exceed .5). Mahalanobis distances

were examined using a Chi-square critical values table. It was determined that no score

was significantly influencing the model (at p = .001) (Garson, 2010; Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2007).

Model summary. The full model for adult learners, IEP experiences, and academic

adjustment to college was significant (F(10, 74) = 2.736, p < .001), and explained

approximately 37% of the variance in the outcome variable (R2 = .372) (See Table 5.4

below).

Only the second block of variables, IEP experiences contributing to academic

adjustment, explained unique variance in the dependent variable (Δ R2 = .306, p < .001).

Analysis of the standardized beta coefficients (β) in this model offered some intriguing

findings. When controlling for the other variables in this model, being from Saudi Arabia

was positively correlated with the dependent variable in both the second and third blocks

112

(b = .279, p < .05 and b = .285, p < .05, respectively). This finding demonstrates that

Saudi students had higher scores of adjustment as measured by the Course Efficacy scale

than the referent group (students from all other countries). Two other variables followed

this trend of statistical significance in the second and third blocks: English language gains

attributed to IEP was positively correlated with the dependent variable, b = .482, p < .001

(block 2) and b = .477, p < .001 (block 3). Also, having a mentor was also positively

correlated with the dependent variable, b = .211, p < .05 (block 2) and b = .221, p < .05

(block 3). Therefore, having a mentor while in an IEP was also related to higher scores of

Course Efficacy.

In this model, the adult learner did not explain any variance in the outcome; this is

true for all the regression models. Conversely, the English language gains attributed to

IEP variable accounted for the most variance explained in all models. The lack of a

significant relationship between the adult learner and all outcome variables is discussed

after a review of all the models.

113

Table 5.4 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How Attending an Intensive English

Program Affects Academic Adjustment, Taking into Account Adult Learner Status and Country

of Origin (China, Saudi Arabia) (N = 90)

adult_learner(a) -0.015 -0.042 -0.065

country_China -0.072 -0.025 -0.014

country_Saudi_Arabia 0.213 0.279 * 0.285 *

score_elgiep(b) 0.482 *** 0.477 ***

score_TOEFL_IELTS(a)(b) 0.123 0.137

same_campus -0.015 -0.007

dual_enrolled -0.144 -0.151

had_mentor 0.211 * 0.221 *

standing_graduate 0.062

still_friends -0.064

R2

0.059 0.365 *** 0.372 ***

Change in R2

0.306 *** 0.006

Block 1:

Background

Characteristics

Block 2:

Experiences in

IEP(s)

Block 3:

Experiences in

College

ββ β

Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

(b) Represents a standardized score

score_TOEFL_IELTS = Average standardized test score

(a) Represents a transformed variable

score_elgiep = English language gains attributed to IEP

same_campus = IEP and current college are on the same campus

dual_enrolled = While in IEP, took classes with undergradate or graduate students

standing_graduate = Participant is a graduate-level student

still_friends = Participant is still friends with former IEP classmate

had_mentor = While in IEP, participant had a mentor

114

Social adjustment. The second model was created to examine the predictive

relationship between social experiences in an IEP and adult learners’ subsequent social

adjustment to the university. This model was designed to address the research question,

“What is the relationship between international students’ social experiences in IEPs and

their social adjustment as matriculated college students?”

Assumptions tested. Analysis of diagnostics to examine normality, linearity,

multicollinearity, and presence of outliers was conducted to verify that the model was

appropriately specified. The procedures and tests applied for the first model (academic

adjustment) were used for this model.

The presence of an outlier significantly influencing the model was identified

using the Mahalanobis distance measure. The recommended critical value for 11

variables using the Chi-square table is 29.59 (p = .001); however, one case exceeded this

limit (35.41) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Using SPSS, a Mahalanobis distance variable

was computed for each case using linear regression. Next, the cumulative distribution

function was calculated, producing a probability value which would indicate which

case(s) are influencing the model. The chart editor function in SPSS output also allows

the researcher to have all cases identified relative. Once identified, the dfbeta statistic was

calculated by dividing the square root of the sample (N = 91) by 2 (Belsley, Kuh, &

Welsch, 1980). For this sample, outlier cases exceeding |-4.8| may be influencing the

model. Case number two was identified as potentially influencing the model according to

the calculated probability value. No cases exceeded |-4.8|; however, the more general

critical |-3.3| was applied and also identified case number two. This case was deleted and

outliers were tested with a new sample size of 90. As a result, the highest Mahalanobis

115

distance was below Chi-square critical level of 29.59 (21.36). Other statistics supported a

lack of additional influential outliers. Cook’s distances were all below 1 (the largest value

was .113) (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2007), and Centered leverage values did not exceed .5

(Garson, 2010).

Tests for homoscedasticity (visual analysis), linearity (a visual analysis of fit lines

in relation to plotted residuals), normality (visual analysis), independence of residuals

(Durbin-Watson statistic = 2.108), and multicollinearity (VIF range: 1.004 to 1.667)

indicated the model was appropriately specified.

Model summary. The full model of adult learners’ social experiences in an IEP as

a predictor of later social adjustment to college was significant, R2 = .350, F(11, 80) =

1.806, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .178 (See Table 5.5).

The first block of variables in this model, the background characteristics (being an

adult learner, gender, being from China, being from Saudi Arabia), was statistically

significant and explained 11.8% of the variance in the dependent variable, Social

provisions. The second block (experiences in IEP[s]), like the first model discussed

(academic adjustment), explained a significant amount of variance in the model, Δ R2

= .203, p < .001. Experiences in IEP(s) explained an additional 20% variance in social

adjustment, above and beyond the control variables. The third block of variables

(experiences in college) did not explain additional variance in the dependent variable,

Social Provisions score, above and beyond the first two blocks.

Unstandardized betas that contributed explained variance within the full model

were English language gains attributed to IEP (b = .342, p < .001). This measure of

English language gains attributed to IEP was positively correlated with scores on the

116

Social Provisions measure; meaning that students who indicated that they had made

meaningful language gains in their IEPs reported higher levels of social adjustment than

those who reported weaker gains. Students from China reported higher levels of social

support (b = 0.244, p < .05) than respondents from other countries. The other control

variable that contributed explained unique variance was identifying as a woman.

Identifying as a woman was negatively correlated with social adjustment (b = -0.358, p

< .01), meaning that women reported lower levels of social support than did men. The

full model is presented below in Table 5.5.

117

Table 5.5 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How Attending an Intensive English

Program Affects Social Adjustment, Taking into account Adult Learner Status, Gender,

and Country of Origin (China, Saudi Arabia) (N = 90)

Adjustment and intent to persist. A third model tested the relationship between

academic and social adjustment, as an interaction term, and intent to persist. This model

was created to address the following research question, “What is the relationship between

international students’ IEP experiences, their social and academic adjustment as

adult_learner(a) 0.027 -0.028 -0.111

gender_woman -0.280 ** -0.336 *** -0.358 ***

country_China 0.176 0.263 * 0.244 *

country_Saudi_Arabia -0.050 -0.069 -0.015

score_elgiep(b) 0.406 *** 0.413 ***

same_campus -0.002 0.008

score_how_social(b) 0.051 0.013

score_how_many_social(b) 0.144 0.209

standing_graduate 0.137

family_at_same -0.090

still_friends 0.095

R2

0.118 * 0.365 *** 0.350 ***

Change in R2

0.203 *** 0.029

family at same = Participant has family members attending the same college

score_how_social = How social participant was outside of IEP-sponsored events

(a) Represents a transformed variable

(b) Represents a standardized score

Block 1:

Background

Characteristics

Block 2:

Experiences in

IEP(s)

Block 3:

Experiences in

College

Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

βββ

score_elgiep = English language gains attributed to IEP

score_how_many_social = How many IEP-sponsored social events participant attended

still_friends = Participant is still friends with former IEP classmate

standing_graduate = Participant is a graduate-level student

same_campus = IEP and current college are on the same campus

118

matriculated college students, and their intent to persist until graduation from their

respective colleges?” The variables included in this model are variables of interest, based

on empirical research. Certain variables were omitted due to their lack of significance in

the other models in this study (e.g., participants’ highest test score on either the TOEFL

or IELTS). Before reviewing the tests of assumptions and results, I summarize the

interaction term, the effect of academic and social adjustment.

To measure the influence of social and academic adjustment on intent to persist

(to graduate from the student’s current institution), an interaction term was created. To

generate this variable, the scores from the social adjustment and the academic adjustment

variables were multiplied. An interaction term is suggested when the researcher

anticipates that the combined effects of two or more variables may explain additional

variance in the dependent variable. At the start of the chapter I described the relationships

between social and academic adjustment in relation to theories of persistence (Tinto,

1975, 1993). These phenomena enhance one another, and work in much the same way as

a moderator variable (Barron & Kenney, 1986; Furst. & Ghisletta, 2009). For example,

academic adjustment might increase a student’s belief that he or she will stay in school

until graduation. Social support may also contribute to this belief. Creating an interaction

term is a way of exploring the potential ways these variables interact and to predict intent

to graduate. Using the aforementioned scenario, it is also possible that higher social

adjustment increases academic adjustment.

The theoretical underpinnings for this model are grounded persistence and

retention studies (e.g., Astin, 1970, 1991; Bean & Metzner, 1985 Cabrera, Milner, &

Milem, 2013; Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, & Pascarella, 1996 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980;

119

Tinto, 1975, 1997) and significant predictors from the academic and the social adjustment

models. Although adult learner was not a significant predictor of adjustment (or lack

thereof) in either of the previous models, I included them in the third model because of

prior research on adult learners’ academic and social adjustment to college as a predictor

of persistence to graduate. This variable was included in the first block entered into the

regression.

Assumptions tested. During the analysis of assumptions to be fulfilled, following

the same procedures and guidelines as the two models discussed above (academic

adjustment and social adjustment), three extreme values in the VIF statistic were detected

(68.01, 57.51, and 158.43). After analyzing the diagnostics and researching possible

causes, it was determined that multicollinearity was being caused by the correlation

between both academic and social adjustment with their product (the interaction

variable): Academic Adjustment X Social Adjustment. These variables are highly

correlated because the interaction variable is comprised of two variables entered in block

three of the regression. The danger of significant multicollinearity is that it can mask

unique variance explained by all three variables individually (Garson, 2010; Hair, Black,

Babin, & Anderson, 2009). One solution is to center these variables by subtracting the

mean for all scale items, in this instance, academic adjustment and social adjustment,

from each item in the variable (Draper & Smith, 1998). After centering, the two centered

variables, academic adjustment and social adjustment, are multiplied to generate the

centered variable (here “Academic Adjustment X Social Adjustment”). This procedure

produced Tolerance and VIF values within acceptable limits (Range 1.003 to 2.037).

120

Below are the tests of other hierarchical multiple regression assumptions, run after

centering the product variable and its components.

Tests for influential outliers were satisfied. Mahalanobis distances were

acceptable. The Chi-square critical value was set at 27.88 and no variable exceeded this

limit (the maximum value was 25.742). Cook’s distance measures did not exceed 1 (the

maximum value was .128) and centered leverage values did not exceed .5 (the maximum

value was .283) (Garson, 2010). For other tests of assumptions, the Durbin-Watson’s

statistic was calculated and reported at 1.544, which indicates independence of residuals

(Garson, 2010).

Normality and linearity were not satisfied. Normality was evaluated by examining

the P-plot of standardized residuals. Deviations in this model were greater than in the two

previous models analyzed. The Shapiro-Wilk’s test (SW) was used to investigate which

variables could be contributing to the noticeable non-normality in the P-plot. The

centered score for all three centered continuous variables: academic adjustment, social

adjustment, and the Academic Adjustment X Social Adjustment, failed to meet the

criteria to reject the null hypothesis (indicating that the data are nonnormal. At p = .05,

the value for academic adjustment was .005, social adjustment, .028, and the interaction

term, .000. Linearity was measured on all partial regression plots. For each, the fit line

recommended was markedly less strong than in the two previous models. Although there

was a slight positive relationship between independent predictor variables and the

dependent variable, it was modest.

Distribution of partial regression plots inspired concerns regarding

homoscedasticity. The most significant scatterplot was the variable measuring how many

121

social events the respondent attended while studying in an IEP, which showed a cluster of

plots closer to zero at the y-axis than for higher values along the x-axis. The likely

explanation is that we might not expect the number of events someone attends to be

normally distributed.

Model Summary. Although issues concerning normality, linearity, and

multicollinearity were confronted in the testing of assumptions, the overall Interaction:

Social X Academic model was significant (R2 = .214, F(9, 80) = 2.028, p = .017, adjusted

R2 = .126; (See table 5.6).

The first block (background characteristics) did not significantly explain any

unique variance in the dependent variable (intent to persist). The same is true for the third

(social and academic adjustment); and fourth blocks (the interaction term: Academic

Adjustment X Social Adjustment). Like the two models created for this study and

discussed above, the second block (experiences in IEP[s]) did significantly explain

variance in the dependent variable (ΔR2 = .120, p = .022). None of the specific

experiences that comprise the second block (experiences in IEP[s]) contributed unique

explained variance when controlling for the whole model, except for English language

gains attributed to IEP, (b = .277, p < .05). This finding indicates that scores on the

English language gains attributed to IEP measure are the only predictor of intent to

persist until graduation when all other variables studied here are considered.

122

Table 5.6 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How Interaction of Academic

Adjustment and Social Adjustment Predict Intent to Persist until Graduating from Current

Institution, Taking into Account Adult Learner Status, Gender, and Country of Origin

(China, Saudi Arabia) (N = 90)

T-test of the adult learner variable

Discussed in this chapter (“Sample scores,” above) were the notable similarity

between scores for different populations of interest in this study (e.g., Saudi students and

referent group). The population of most interest in this study is the adult learner. In

addition to reporting similar scores on measures before regression (e.g., English language

adult_learner(a) 0.060 0.049 0.054 0.058

gender_woman -0.086 -0.132 -0.120 -0.114

country_China -0.232 -0.152 -0.159 -0.123

country_Saudi_Arabia 0.056 0.041 0.015 0.026

score_elgiep(b) 0.351 ** 0.274 * 0.277 *

had_mentor 0.011 * -0.018 -0.001

same_campus -0.218 -0.217 -0.209

score_how_many_social(b) 0.087 0.088 0.097

score_course-efficacy(c) 0.119 0.151

score_SPS(c) 0.051 -0.043

InteractionAXS(c) 0.150

R2

0.081 0.201 0.213 * 0.227 *

Change in R2

0.120 * 0.012 0.014

β

Block 1:

Background

Characteristics

Block 2:

Experiences in

IEP(s)

Block 4:

Interaction:

Academic X Social

Adjustment

Block 3:

Academic

Adjustment Social

Adjustment

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

(a) Represents a transformed variable

(c) Represents a centered score

(b) Represents a standardized score

ββ

had_mentor = While in IEP, participant had a mentor

score_how_many_social = How many IEP-sponsored social events participant attended

interaction AXS = interaction product of score_course-efficacy and score_SPS

same_campus = IEP and current college are on the same campus

score_elgiep = English language gains attributed to IEPs

Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient

β

123

gains attributed to IEP, intent to persist until graduation from participants’ current

college) the adult learner variable was not a significant predictor of change on any

outcome in the three regression models. To explore this lack of significance, I conducted

an independent samples t test comparing adult learners and non-adult learners. Mean

scores were conducted for these two groups on the outcomes of each regression model.

No significant differences were identified for scores on Course Efficacy (t(88) = -.076, p

= .940) showed a small effect size (d = .0159); Social support (t(88) = .087, p = .087)

showed a small effect size (d = .0184); and intent to persist (t(88) = .087, p = .931),

showed a small effect size (d = .0184) (Cohen, 1988). These results suggest that because

these two groups were not significantly different, further research is needed to examine

how the international adult learner should be defined. This is explored in greater detail in

the next chapter.

Summary

This chapter provided descriptive statistics for the study sample, factor analytic

procedures for establishing the dimensionality of scales used in this study, and the results

of the regression models designed to address the research questions. The results suggest

that when controlling for all other variables, the English language gains attributed to IEPs

is the most significant predictor of academic adjustment, social adjustment, and intent to

persist (i.e., graduate from the university students are currently attending). This finding

suggests that the English language development students experience in an IEP may help

them adjust to college and increase their subsequent intent to graduate from their current

college. In the academic adjustment model, participants who identified as Saudi had

higher Course Efficacy scores than the referent group (students from other countries) and

124

students who had a mentor while in an IEP had higher scores on the Course efficacy

scale, the measure representing academic adjustment in this study.

In the social adjustment model, women reported lower scores of Social provisions

than men, whereas participants who identified as Chinese had higher scores of social

support than students from other countries. In the final model, intent to persist, the only

variable significantly associated with the intent to persist variable was English language

gains attributed to IEP. As mentioned above, this variable was the most significant

predictor of each outcome in each model.

In the following chapter, these results are discussed in relation to prior research

and my experiences working in an IEP. These findings point to ways in which IEPs can

better understand the needs of their students, and which program interventions might help

with their adjustment.

125

Chapter 6

DISCUSSION

This chapter summarizes and discusses the study results. The current chapter

details the adjustment experiences of international students who have attended a campus-

based Intensive English Program (IEP) and their intent to graduate from their current

institution (college or university). Study results are discussed relative to themes and

findings in the existing literature, implications for practitioners, and future directions for

research. The purpose of IEPs is to prepare international students for study in the United

States; however, few studies have empirically investigated their adjustment experiences

to college and their intent to persist in their studies. The academic and social adjustment

of these students once they matriculate to a full-time undergraduate or graduate program

and continue studying at this same institution merits attention and motivated this study.

Adult learners who have attended an IEP and are now full-time students at a U.S.

university have not been studied in any regard. Because of their distinctive needs,

motivations, and lives outside of the classroom, I designed this study to examine this

group in contrast to non-adult learners. Awareness of the adult learner at universities is

not a new area of research, but remains under-investigated, especially for international

adult learners. The adult learner descriptor does not apply to the majority of research

participants in this study; however, they are well represented using some criteria of adult

learner status. Over one-third of the participants met the criteria for “adult learner,”

meaning they were at least 25 years old, married, and/or had dependent children.

126

Although research participants met certain inclusion criteria to be categorized as

adult learners, the results of an independent samples t-tests indicated no significant

differences between adult and non-adult learners. Studies and reports of international

students broadly, and former IEP students specifically, illustrate the unique adjustment

experiences of international adult learners that have been detailed in this study. These

adjustment experiences include social support from a spouse (Poyrazli & Kavanaugh,

2006; Ramsay, Jones, & Barker, 2007) and managing different roles and responsibilities

outside the classroom that may increase social isolation (Leggett, 2013; Winters, 2015).

Future directions for successfully identifying and studying international adult learners are

discussed below.

To determine the relationship between attending an IEP and international student

adjustment experiences at the university, this study draws on scholarly work from the

fields of adult education (Huang, 2012; Kasworm, 2003, 2010; Kasworm & Pike,1994);

linguistics (Duff, 2010; Gee, 2004, Norton-Pierce, 1995); summer bridge programs—and

more broadly, theories of adjustment and persistence within higher education studies

(Cabrera, Miner & Milem; 2013 Stolle-McAllister, 2011; Strayhorn, 2011; Walpole,

2008); and social capital theory (Kwai, 2009; Morita, 2000; Museus & Quaye, 2009;

Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Trice, 2004). Although the adult learner variable did not predict

adjustment or intent to persist, other variables significantly accounted for variance in the

outcome variables in each model. Discussed below are the significant and unexpected

findings for each model. These results are examined in light of relevant literature and the

theoretical premises of this study. Recommendations for research, practice, and policy are

included in the results discussion. Due to the novelty of the present study and the

127

importance of future research in this area, additional recommendations for future study

are detailed.

Before a discussion of the results, I examine the adult learner variable and its lack

of any predictive power on the outcomes in these models. The remaining portion of the

findings section continues with a discussion on the academic adjustment model, the

social adjustment model, and the interaction of social and academic variables on the

intent to persist model.

Adult Learner

Adult learners were the demographic characteristic of most interest in this study. I

anticipated that adult IEP students’ academic and social adjustment experiences would

differ from those of non-adult learners. Although further research is necessary to test the

following hypotheses, there may be several reasons why the adult learner variable did not

significantly predict any outcome in this study. Indeed, the adult learner variable was not

significantly different from the non-adult learner. First, the sample size was relatively

small; a larger sample would have included more adult learners, which in turn may have

yielded different statistical outcomes. Second, the study omitted several other markers of

adult learner status (see Chapter 4), including first-generation status, part-time

employment, and financial independence. Including these variables would have resulted

in a large group of adult learners.

There is little research on international adult learners in U.S. colleges and

universities. However, some evidence suggests that international adult learners may have

different experiences adjusting to college and coping with stress. For instance, a study of

international adult learners and domestic adult learners found evidence that the

128

international cohort were more interested in socializing and making friends with

classmates and may be motivated to return to school based on readiness for the

educational experience (Lin, & Wang, 2015). Another study found that international adult

learners’ socioeconomic status before college enrollment significantly contributed to

increased levels of academic stress. In short, identifying the international adult learner

and their unique needs requires further refinement.

Findings: Academic Adjustment

Research Question 1. What is the relationship between international students’

academic experiences in IEPs and their academic adjustment as matriculated

college students? The academic adjustment regression model indicated that the

strongest predictors of academic self-efficacy for first-semester students were (1)

having a mentor while attending an IEP, (2) positive gains in English language

proficiency attributed to attending an IEP, and (3) identifying as Saudi. First, this

finding suggests that IEPs, though broad in their range of services and course

content, should consider providing a mentor, transition partner, or institutional

agent for IEP students who are university bound. This finding supports the extant

research on the importance of mentors in language learning contexts such as a

college campus and in successful transitions to the university after attending a

summer bridge program (Marquez Kiyama, & Guillen Luca, 2014; Museus &

Quaye, 2009). Similar in function, though lacking any predictive power in this

study, is the absence of any effect by the variables related to context-specific

learning, being a dual-enrolled student (attending for-credit undergraduate and

129

graduate classes while being enrolled in an IEP) and matriculating to a university

course of study on the same campus where the participant attended an IEP.

Second, English language gains attributed to attending an IEP was the strongest

predictor of academic self-efficacy. IEPs may serve other populations in addition to

university-bound international students; however, for those students who aspire to

matriculate to a college or university in the United States, academic English proficiency

is beneficial. IEPs must continue to help students develop and refine this area of their

linguistic repertoire specifically. The findings suggest that students’ perception of English

language gains goes hand-in-hand with their perceived degree of control over their

academic pursuits.

The scale items used to examine language gains attributed to time spent in IEPs is

similar to the range of skills assessed by the TOEFL (Xu, 1991). The variable measuring

average English language standardized test score combined participants’ self-reported

highest test score for ease of analysis. It would not be surprising then to see a significant

positive correlation between these two variables: English language gains attributed to IEP

and participants’ highest standardized test score. However, in the academic adjustment

model, these two variables were not significantly correlated. The average standardized

test score variable did not significantly predict academic self-efficacy, meaning that a

higher TOEFL or IELTS score was not related to greater Course Efficacy. Although these

standardized tests are refined and developed through principled research with a goal to

measure the probability a non-native speaker of English can perform certain academic

tasks, the results of this study suggest that these test scores do not influence efficacy in

course-related tasks.

130

Evidence from a longitudinal study of English proficiency test score (IELTS),

suggests that IEPs can help students attain a minimum required score for admission in

less than a year (Heitner, Hoekje, & Braciszewski, 2014). It is important to keep in mind

the relative distance between a students’ highest standardized test score upon arrival (to

the IEP) and the score needed for admission. In the present study, participants provided

their highest English language test score: Additional research could examine IEP

students’ test scores, perceptions of English language gains, and measures of academic

adjustment to the college setting. This could shed light on the relationships between

perceived language gains, and empirical measures of language proficiency.

Finally, participants from Saudi Arabia reported higher scores of Course Efficacy,

the instrument used to measure academic adjustment. Saudi participants had greater

Course Efficacy than participants in the reference group (participants from all other

countries). This variable was included for exploratory purposes. As discussed in Chapter

2, Saudi students have been overrepresented in IEPs due to support from the King

Abdullah Scholarship. As a result, research on Saudi students enrolled in an IEP or a

university in the United States has grown in recent years (Al Murshidi, 2014; Alajlan,

2013; Giroir, 2014; Hall, 2013). Like many sponsored students, Saudi students sponsored

under the King Abdullah Scholarship have access to academic advisors (Hall, 2013).

How frequently students use this resource and its perceived benefit to student’s academic

adjustment are unknown.

Due to recent Saudi government restrictions on scholarships for study in the

United States, the adjustment experiences and graduation rates of Saudi students in U.S.

colleges and universities are salient for IEP administrators and policy makers. One

131

contributing factor to this change in policy has been the relatively low numbers of Saudi

students who matriculate to a university after attending an IEP (Alotaibi, 2016). The goal

of the King Abdullah Scholarship was to provide cross-cultural contact between Saudi

Arabian college students and college students in the United States. The September 11th

terrorist attacks and cross-cultural tensions between the United States and the Middle

East immediately afterward inspired this scholarship. For those Saudi students who do

matriculate to a university after attending an IEP, the present study provides intriguing

evidence suggesting that they are more academically adjusted than other student

populations.

Interpretations of this finding must take into consideration the limitations

discussed in Chapter 4, especially the threats of mismeasurement in self-reported attitude

scales across cultures. The present study included a fourth model to measure academic

self-efficacy as a predictor of first semester, but could not be carried out due to limited

data set. This is relevant for the present discussion insofar as academic self-efficacy

studies of first-semester university students have occasionally revealed a disconnect.

Students may feel overconfident in their ability to complete academic tasks successfully,

as indicated by high academic self-efficacy and lower first-semester GPA (Gore, 2006;

Kahn & Nauta, 2001). The need for additional research on Saudi student academic

adjustment is supported by other relationships among the variables in this study. These

suggest that Saudi students were (a) less likely to have a mentor (a predictor of academic

adjustment in this study), (b) had lower standardized English language test scores, but (c)

reported the highest levels of academic self-efficacy.

Findings: Social Adjustment

132

Research Question 2. What is the relationship between international students’ social

experiences in IEPs and their social adjustment as matriculated college students? The

regression model for social adjustment revealed that the greatest predictor is English

language gains attributed to IEP. This is the same variable used in the academic

adjustment model to predict academic self-efficacy. The material referenced in the

creation of this scale is from a subfield of English as a Second Language—English for

Academic Purposes (EAP). Broadly, EAP is designed to build a broad base of academic

language and familiarity with academic tasks that can be applied across multiple

academic settings (Ferris, & Tagg, 1996). IEPs are not exclusively EAP-oriented in their

course offerings; however, on-campus IEPs, the sites examined in this study, should

include linguistic skills that help students prepare for university-related academic tasks.

The results of the academic model above support this hypothesis. That these same

English language gains also predict social adjustment, however, warrants further study.

Chapter 4 reviewed some possible challenges in measuring English language gains

retrospectively, including the chance that participants may apply their favorable IEP

experience to the English language gains survey scale. Methods to better capture the

specific language gains made while attending an IEP are discussed in the next section.

Other significant findings in this model are related to the demographic control

variables. For instance, Chinese participants reported greater social support than

participants from other countries (the reference group). This model also suggested a

relationship between self-identifying as Chinese and (a) adult learner status (Chinese

participants were less likely to be adult learners) and (b) the number of IEP social events

attended (Chinese participants attended fewer events than the reference group). One

133

hypothesis is that for Chinese students, social engagement in IEP-sponsored events is not

related to the establishment or maintenance of social support networks, which suggests

that they are accessing social support from other sources. Further research, however, is

needed to support this association. Additional research could examine the sources of

social support (e.g., co-national students, domestic students) that former IEP students

receive as matriculated college students. This research would contribute to the literature

on social support networks of Chinese international students (Chen & Ross, 2015;

Heikenheimo & Schute, 1986; Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood, 2013; Yan & Berliner,

2011).

Another demographic variable, gender, revealed that women participants reported

less social support as matriculated university students. An additional analysis will be

conducted to determine if this correlates with a particular student population. The

research on gender and levels social adjustment among international students is mixed

(Fatima, 2001; Kwon, 2009; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Perrucci & Hu, 1995; Poyrazli,

Kavanaugh, Baker, & Al‐Timimi, 2004). Why women in the present study reported lower

scores of social support than men is not clear. Additional research could build on studies

of former IEP students who are balancing responsibilities such as child care in addition to

attending school (Leggett, 2013; Winters, 2015). In fact, research from the U.K. suggests

that gender norms among spouses studying internationally are reinforced, and that

women’s academic goals are often subordinated to their spouse’s academic work and

domestic responsibilities such as child care (Brooks, 2015). These gender relations could

help explain why female students in this research reported less social support.

134

In general, universities should ensure that they are meeting the psychosocial needs

of their international student population. International students with higher levels of

social support can cope better with the stress of adjustment (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992;

Yeh & Inose, 2003). The current study suggests that maintaining friendships after

attending an IEP, and matriculating to an undergraduate or graduate program on the same

campus where the IEP is located are related to social adjustment. An area for future

research on international student adjustment and social support is the differences between

international students who have matriculated to a college after attending an IEP on the

same college campus compared to international students who did not attend an IEP.

Although adult learner status did not predict social adjustment, the model suggests

that adult learners participated more in IEP social activities. It is unknown if the adult

learner participants were classified as adults by dint of age, marital status, or caregiving

status—or a combination thereof. Although there is often overlap in time commitments of

adult learners, whether, for example they are employed full time, or providing significant

caregiving to a child or family member, adult learners’ needs vary. IEPs and colleges

must ensure they are supporting the specific needs for all adult learners. For example, an

older, single, childless IEP student is likely to have different needs for support than a

married parent. The reasons that attending IEP social events is more common for adult

learners than non-adult learners (e.g., because they welcome families, or serve as a social

hub for adults in a youth-oriented program) warrants further investigation. The needs of

this population are often neglected within higher education.

135

Findings: Social and Academic Adjustment as a Predictor of Intent to Persist

Research Question 3. What is the relationship between international students’ IEP

experiences, their social and academic adjustment as matriculated college students, and

their intent to graduate from their respective colleges? This study offers tentative support

for an existing body of research that has demonstrated that academic adjustment

significantly predicts persistence to graduation (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997).

Because this study observed a participant’s intent to persist only in their first semester of

college study, this study does not measure persistence. Although research on international

student persistence is limited (Andrade, 2006, 2009; Kwai, 2009; Mamiseishvii, 2012;

Smith, 2015), factors such as GPA and academic engagement predict undergraduates’

intent to persist and persistence more so than social variables (Mamiseishvili, 2012;

Kwai, 2009; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). Further research is recommended on adult

international students and persistence at the graduate and undergraduate levels. As

discussed in Chapter 2, international undergraduates experience different challenges than

U.S.-born undergraduates. Adult international students in U.S. colleges have reported

support from and a sense of obligation to family and partner, which may either facilitate a

greater intent to persist or prompt early withdrawal (Astin, 1975; Jacobs & Berkowitz-

King, 2002; Kim, 2015; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006).

Future research

There is ample opportunity for future research on the adjustment experiences of

non-native English-speaking adult learners in the university. Although I did not find

significant relationships between adult learner status and adjustment to the university

136

after attending an IEP, researchers are encouraged to consider the following

recommendations.

Defining the adult learner. Chapters 3 and 4 reviewed common criteria for

defining the adult learner in a university context. These criteria should be secondary to a

participant’s lived experience as an adult learner, that is, the significance these students

attribute to their roles and responsibilities as adults. In other words, although age may

indicate adult learner status, having off-campus responsibilities may be a better, though

not comprehensive, indicator of adulthood. In the present study, age was only one of

three criteria used to designate adult learner status. However, the lived experiences of

adult learners are diverse and evolving, rather than fixed and stable (Clark & Dirkx,

2000; Kasworm, 2010). Scholarship in the field of adult learning has shifted from a

monolithic understanding of the adult learner toward a contextualized approach.

Common inclusion criteria for defining adult learners are: financial independence,

marital status, caregiving responsibilities, age, first-generation student status, and other

commitments such as employment. These individual characteristics may affect social and

academic adjustment in qualitatively different ways and therefore could be incorporated

into a model as separate variables. The international student at a college or university in

the United States may satisfy the common criteria for adult learner status, but the

difference in social and cultural norms associated with age and adult responsibilities may

not be as relevant in the international educational setting. The unique explanatory power

for predicting higher or lower levels of adjustment grounded in contextualized definitions

of adult learner can then inform institutional (college) or programmatic (IEP) policy with

greater focus.

137

Additionally, future research should include possible revisions to the criteria used

for adult learner status in order to incorporate culturally-specific interpretations of

adulthood and the responsibilities often associated with them. The example of male

guardianship for unmarried Saudi women studying abroad, discussed in Chapter 3,

demonstrates that caregiving responsibilities can be complex and not easily interpreted

the way a researcher intends. Researchers must be mindful of commonly accepted

definitions of Western adult responsibility and of their potential fragility when applied to

different cultural contexts.

Orienting international students to the campus. The characteristics of the

educational settings can be examined to better determine how IEPs and colleges that

receive former IEP students inhibit or facilitate their adjustment. For IEPs this includes

support for parents in the form of policies and accommodations such as flexible

attendance policies and on-campus housing options for families. Future studies can also

examine IEP curricula, including the age-appropriateness of the content and delivery for

adult learners, content-specific English language courses that promote greater levels of

skill transfer to the university (James, 2014). Because IEPs are uniquely situated on

college campuses, research exploring how IEP students become familiar with

administrative offices campus-based student support resources should be examined.

Research into IEPs’ role in technology-related socialization specific to different colleges

in the United States, such as course management systems, on-line registration systems,

and social events calendars, is also encouraged. Research on college student persistence

and retention have indicated that for minority students, which has been extended to

international students in the present study , early socialization into the larger systems and

138

processes of the university may contribute to students’ intent to persist (Attinasi, 1989;

Museus, & Quaye, 2009).

Institution type, IEP type. Colleges can be further differentiated in future studies

to better understand the college environment. These categories include institutional type

(e.g., public, private) and size. Curriculum options for language support after the IEP

student has matriculated to the university should also be examined. The relationship

between the college and its IEP is also under-researched and merits scholarly attention.

Students may wish to matriculate as soon as possible; however, IEP students’ enthusiasm

for expedient matriculation must not come at the expense their academic preparedness. In

the present study, dual-enrollment did not predict academic adjustment, running counter

to research on dual-enrollment of community college students and high school students

who enroll in similar programs. This non-significant relationship may stem from IEP

students matriculating before they are academically prepared; however, additional

research is recommended to support this hypothesis.

Research design. Another recommendation for future research is a longitudinal

research design, which would reduce potential memory bias and the recall of language-

specific skills that former IEP students may not recognize, thus enabling researchers to

assess language gains as they occur in the IEP. If IEPs were able to approximate the

predictive power of high school GPA on academic success in college, their value, on

purely an academic performance metric, would gain significant ground.

Social network analysis (SNA) may elucidate the sources and types of support

adult IEP students receive, including through social media, online sources (e.g.,

discussion boards), and other ICTs. Because IEPs, like many social sites, provide more

139

than English language courses, the support exchanged between the adult learners in these

settings may shed light on the additional ways IEPs help students adjust to life as a

matriculated student.

Finally, research studies of former IEP student adjustment to college should

compare their adjustment experiences with those of direct entry students who did not

attend an IEP. The findings of the present study are informative across IEPs and colleges

settings; however, advocacy for the utility of IEPs can be strengthened by examining

student adjustment to college using a control group such as international students who did

not attend an IEP.

Conclusion

Although international enrollments continue to increase, attention to their

adjustment concerns such as overall well-being and readiness to participate in an English-

medium college remain understudied. Other English-speaking countries—with far less

complicated visa procedures and lower tuitions—have done more than the US to attract

international students to their countries in recent years; however, the United States still

attracts international students to their campuses. The gap between the United States and

these countries is shrinking, and without regard for these students’ satisfaction, they are

likely to look elsewhere to obtain college degrees.

The present study sheds light on an often-understudied international student

population: students who have attended an on-campus IEP and are now matriculated

undergraduate and graduate students. The findings of this study suggest that English

language programs such as IEPs contribute to academic adjustment and social

adjustment. Additionally, having a mentor may predict greater academic adjustment.

140

Additional research is recommended to examine why Saudi students report higher levels

of academic adjustment among former IEP students; women report lower scores of social

adjustment; and students from China report higher scores of social adjustment—despite

participating in fewer IEP-sponsored events. The transition from IEP student to

matriculated college student status remains understudied; however, the present study

offers insights into IEP characteristics, the students who attend IEPs, and their adjustment

experiences to college.

141

REFERENCES

Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on

international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39(6),

539. http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/

Ahumada, C. G. (2008). Childhood social support history and romantic attachment style

among adult survivors of child abuse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant

International University, Los Angeles.

Aitken, J. M., & Browning, T. J. (2015). An integrated approach for teaching true

beginners: One program’s experience. Paper presented at the MIDTESOL 2015:

“The Future Is Now: Building New Traditions in TESOL”, Iowa City, IA.

Al Murshidi, G. (2014). Participation challenges of Emirati and Saudi students at US

universities. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning,

3(5), 33-52.

Alajlan, S. M., & Peterson, C. M. (2013). Obstacles Facing Adult Education in Saudi

Arabia. In M. Boucouvalas (Ed.), 1-9). Symposium conducted at the International

Pre-Conference of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education

Lexington, KY. (ED547262).

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547262.pdf#page=7

Alhajjuj, K. K. (2016). Learning to manage: Saudi female doctoral students in education

manage academic and motherhood roles in U.S. universities (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:15065.

142

Ali, M. A. (2008). Loss of parenting self-efficacy among immigrant parents.

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(2), 148-160.

Alotaibi, A. A. (2016). Is your student fit for that college? A study of the factors that

contribute to students' academic performance in college (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Order No. 10250849)

Andrade, M. (2005). International students and the first year of college. Journal of The

First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 17(1), 101-129.

Andrade, M. (2009). The international student picture. In M. S. Andrade, & N. W. Evans

(Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical resource (pp. 1-24).

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural integrity?

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 57-81.

doi:10.2190/9my5-256h-vfva-8r8p

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities:

Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-

154. http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com

Andrade, M. S. (2009). The effects of English language proficiency on adjustment to

university life. International Multilingual Research Journal, 3(1), 16-34.

Andrade, M. S., & Evans, N. W. (2009). Keys to persistence: International students in

higher education. In M. S. Andrade & N. W. Evans (Eds.), International students:

Strengthening a critical resource (pp. 43-72). Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield Education.

143

Arcuino, C. L. T. (2013). The relationship between the Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL), the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)

scores and academic success of international Master's students (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (Order No.

3565474)

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities

and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans' perceptions of university

attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. The Journal of

Higher Education, 60(3), 247-277. doi:10.2307/1982250

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bang, E.-J. (2009). The effects of gender, academic concerns, and social support on stress

for international students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri).

Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10355/6133

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

144

Barratt, M., & Huba, M. (1994). Factors related to international undergraduate student

adjustment in an American community. College Student Journal, 28(4), 422-436.

Barrett, R. P. (1982). Introduction. In R. P. Barrett (Ed.), The Administration of Intensive

English Programs (pp. 1-7). Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign

Student Affairs.

Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2009). Can we feel confident in how we measure college

confidence?: A psychometric investigation of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory.

Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development (Sage Publications

Inc.), 42(3), 197-222. http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Mahwah: NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate

student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.

Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (2005). Regression diagnostics: Identifying

influential data and sources of collinearity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bevis, T. B., & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International students in American colleges and

universities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Bland, S. M. (2003). Advising adults: Telling or coaching? Adult Learning, 14(2), 6-9.

Block, D. (2002). Communicative language teaching revisited: discourses in conflict and

foreign national teachers. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 19-26.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information,

16(6), 645-668.

145

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The three forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of

theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York:

Greenwood Press.

Brady-Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self-efficacy, self-rated abilities, adjustment,

and academic performance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(4), 431-

438.

Braxton, J. M., & Lee, S. D. (2005). Toward reliable knowledge about college student

departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student

success (pp. 107-128). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Braxton, J. M., Shaw Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto's theory

of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of

theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 107-164).

Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Larkin, K. C. (1989). Self-efficacy as a moderator of

scholastic aptitude-academic performance relationships. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 35(1), 64-75. http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999).

Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison

between White students and African-American students. The Journal of Higher

Education, 70(2), 134-160. doi:10.2307/2649125

Cabrera, N. L., Miner, D. D., & Milem, J. F. (2013). Can a summer bridge program

impact first-year persistence and performance?: A case study of the New Start

Summer Program. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 481-498.

146

Cadieux, R. A. J., & Wehrly, B. (1986). Advising and counseling the international

student. New Directions for Student Services, 36, 51-63.

Caldwell, J. D. (2013). Examining the experiences and adjustment challenges of Saudi

Arabian students in the California state university system (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (Order No. 3606395)

Case, E. D. (2004). Making the transition from an intensive English program to

mainstream university courses: An ethnographic study. Lewiston, NY: Edwin

Mellen Press.

Castles, J. (2004). Persistence and the Adult Learner: Factors affecting persistence in

open university students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 166-179.

doi:10.1177/1469787404043813

Chang, Y.-J., & Kanno, Y. (2010). NNES doctoral students in English-speaking academe:

The nexus between language and discipline. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 671-692.

Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture

shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student

Development, 45(2), 167-184.

Chartrand, J. M. (1990). A causal analysis to predict the personal and academic

adjustment of nontraditional students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(1),

65-73. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.37.1.65

Chartrand, J. M. (1992). An empirical test of a model of nontraditional student

adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(2), 193-202. doi:

10.1037/0022-0167.39.2.193

147

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year

college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,

93(1), 55-64. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.55

Chen, Y., & Ross, H. (2015). “Creating a home away from home”: Chinese

undergraduate student enclaves in US higher education. Journal of Current

Chinese Affairs, 44(3), 155-181.

Choudaha, R. (2017). Landscape of third-party pathway partnerships in the United

States. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Clark, M. C., & Dirkx, J. M. (2000). Moving beyond a unitary self: A reflective dialogue.

In S. B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing

education (pp. 101-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 310.

Cohen, S. E., & Syme, S. (1985). Social support and health. Orlando, FL: Academic

Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal

of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

Compton, J. I., Cox, E., & Laanan, F. S. (2006). Adult learners in transition. New

Directions for Student Services, 2006(114), 73-80.

148

Craig, R, (2017, Jan. 27) Making America first in higher ed: Open the door. Inside Higher

Ed. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/01/27/us-should-ease-not-restrict-

access-its-colleges-international-students-essay

Crawley, J. (2017). Recruiting via conditional admission and pathway programs. In J.

Black Sandberg (Ed.), NAFSA's guide to international student recruitment (3rd

ed., pp. 169-179). Washington, DC: NAFSA Association of International

Educators.

Cubeta, J. F., Travers, N. L., & Sheckley, B. G. (2001). Predicting the academic success

of adults from diverse populations. Journal of College Student Retention:

Research, Theory & Practice, 2(4), 295-311.

Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social

adjustment. In L. A. Peplau & D. Pearlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of

current theory, research and practice (pp. 291-309). New York: Wiley

Interscience.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and

adaptation to stress. Advances in Personal Relationships, 1(1), 37-67.

Dantas-Whitney, M., Dowling, B. T., & Larson, A. L. (2002). Initiating students into the

academic community. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive

English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 23-35). Alexandria, VA:

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

149

Davis, T. M. (1997). Open Doors 1996-1997: Report on international educational

exchange. Annapolis Junction, MD: IIE Books, Institute of International

Education.

De Verthelyi, R. F. (1995). International students' spouses: Invisible sojourners in the

culture shock literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(3),

387-411. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/

Dehghanpisheh, E. (1987). An overview of undergraduate ESL program models: A

comparison of administrative policies for international students. TESOL

Quarterly, 21(3), 570-577.

Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A

critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.

DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores:

Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation, 14(20), 1-11.

Donaldson, J. F., & Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult

Education Quarterly, 50(1), 24-40. doi:10.1177/074171369905000103

Douglas, D. (2003). Introduction to English language testing in U.S. colleges and

universities. In D. Douglas (Ed.), English language testing in U.S. colleges and

universities (2nd ed., pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of

International Educators.

Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Applied Regression Analysis. New York: Wiley &

Sons.

150

Duff, P. (2008). Heritage language education in Canada. In D. Brinton & S Olga Kagan

(Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging, (pp. 71-90). New

York: Routledge.

Duff, P. A. (2003). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in

educational discourse. Linguistics and Education, 14(3-4), 231-276.

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000048

Duff, P. A., & Anderson, T. (2015). Academic language and literacy socialization for

second language students. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom

discourse and interaction (Vol. 115). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

Dunkel, P., Mishra, S., & Berliner, D. (1989). Effects of Note Taking, Memory, and

Language Proficiency on Lecture Learning for Native and Nonnative Speakers of

English. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 543-549. doi:10.2307/3586929

Dunnett, S. (2017). A history of international recruitment in U.S. higher education. In J.

Black Sandberg (Ed.), NAFSA's guide to international student recruitment (3rd

ed., pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Durkheim, E. (1966). Suicide (J. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free

Press.

Eaton, S. B., & Bean, J. P. (1995). An approach/avoidance behavioral model of college

student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 617-645.

Eaton, S. B., & Bean, J. P. (1995). An approach/avoidance behavioral model of college

student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 617-645.

151

Edgerton, W. (1982). Number of foreign students continues to increase but at slower rate.

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 14(8), 49-51.

Eggleston, L. E., & Laanan, F. S. (2001). Making the transition to the senior institution.

New Directions for Community Colleges, 114, 87-97.

Ekström, J. (2011). A generalized definition of the polychoric correlation coefficient

(Department of statistics papers). Retrieved from the Department of Statistics,

UCLA Manuscript https://escholarship.org/content/qt583610fv/qt583610fv.pdf

Elder, C., & O'Loughlin, K. (2003). Investigating the relationship between intensive

English language study and band gain score on IELTS. International English

Language Testing (IELTS) Research Reports 2003, 4(207).

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:”

Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of

Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.

Evans, N. W., Carlin, D. B., & Potts, J. D. (2009). Adjustment issues. In M. S. Andrade &

N. W. Evans (Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical

resource (pp. 25-41). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Understanding statistics: Exploratory factor

analysis. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.

Farrell, S. L., Cranston, C. L., & Bullington, J. (2013). Embracing into: library plans and

campus collaboration to serve an increased international student

population. Collaborative Librarianship, 5(2), 101-121.

Farrugia, C. A., & Bhandari, R. (2015). Open doors 2014-2015: Report on international

education exchange. New York: Institute of International Education.

152

Fatima, N. (2001). International female graduate students'

perceptions of their adjustment experiences and coping strategies at an urban

research university. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. ERIC 452336.

Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2014). Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: Some

additional considerations. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 30(3),

1170-1175.

Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students:

Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297-320.

Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement

of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299.

Fox, J., Cheng, L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Do they make a difference? The impact of

English language programs on second language students in Canadian universities.

TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 57-85.

Fox, J. M. (2017). Transitioning to a US university: Case studies of Chinese students and

an intensive English program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertation & Theses A&I (Order No. 10272997)

Friedenberg, J. E. (2002). The linguistic inaccessibility of US higher education and the

inherent inequity of US IEPs: An argument for multilingual higher education.

Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 309-326.

Fry, M. E. (1986). Selected perceptions of English as a second language programs in

postsecondary institutions in the United States (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

153

Furst, G., & Ghisletta, P. (2009). Statistical interaction between two continuous (latent)

variables. Paper presented at the 11th Congress of the Swiss Psychological

Society.

Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. P. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for

Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical

guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13.

Gándara, P. (2002). A study of high school puente: What we have learned about preparing

Latino youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 474-495.

Garcia, P. (1991). Summer bridge: Improving retention rates for underprepared students.

Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 3(2), 91-105.

Gardner, S. K., & Gopaul, B. (2012). The part-time doctoral student experience.

International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 63-78.

Garson, G. D. (2010). Regression analysis. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Publishing

Associates.

Garson, G. D. (2013). Factor Analysis (Kindle ed.): Statistical Associates Publishers.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning language as a matter of learning social languages within

discourses. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A

sociocultural approach (pp. 13-31). Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical

models. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how

people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management

Learning, 29(3), 273-297.

154

Gigliotti, R. J., & Huff, H. K. (1995). Role-related conflicts, strains and stresses of older-

adult college students. Sociological Focus, 28(3), 329-342.

Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students:

Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education,

82(1), 33-53.

Giroir, S. (2014). Narratives of participation, identity, and positionality: Two cases of

Saudi learners of English in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 34-56.

Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn's parallel analysis methodology for

selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 55(3), 377-393.

Gloria, A. M., & Ho, T. A. (2003). Environmental, social, and psychological experiences

of Asian American undergraduates: Examining issues of academic persistence.

Journal of Counseling and Development: JCD, 81(1), 93.

Gloria, A. M., Kurpius, S. E. R., Hamilton, K. D., & Willson, M. S. (1999). African

American students' persistence at a predominantly White university: Influences of

social support, university comfort, and self-beliefs. Journal of College Student

Development, 40(3), 257.

Gloria, A. M., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2001). Influences of self-beliefs, social

support, and comfort in the university environment on the academic

nonpersistence of American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 29(3), 88-102.

Golden, S. (2003). Self-Efficacy: How Does It Influence Academic Success? Adult

Learning, 14(3), 14.

155

Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1983). Absence of decision: Foreign students in American

colleges and universities. A report on policy formation and the lack thereof.

Institute of International Education (IIE) Research Report 1.

Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of College Outcomes: Two

Incremental Validity Studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92-115.

doi:10.1177/1069072705281367

Gottlieb, B. H., & Bergen, A. E. (2010). Social support concepts and measures. Journal

of psychosomatic research, 69(5), 511-520.

Graham, J. G. (1987). English language proficiency and the prediction of academic

success. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 505-521. doi:10.2307/3586500

Grosse, C. U., & Lubell, D. (1984). A cross program evaluation of major intensive

English programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English

to Speakers of Other Languages, Houston, TX.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998).

Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Halic, O., Greenberg, K., & Paulus, T. (2009). Language and academic identity: A study

of the experiences of non-native English speaking international students.

International Education, 38(2), 73.

Hall, T. R. (2013). Saudi male perceptions of study in the United States: An analysis of

King Abdullah Scholarship program participants (Doctoral dissertation, Western

Kentucky University). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/diss/50

156

Hamrick, J. (2012). Intensive English programs. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller

(Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 321-336).

Provo, UT: Alta Book Center.

Hardin, C. J. (2008). Adult students in higher education: A portrait of transitions. New

Directions for Higher Education, 2008(144), 49-57. doi:10.1002/he.325

Haselgrove, S. (1994). The student experience. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Hayes, R. L., & Lin, H. R. (1994). Coming to America: Developing social support

systems for international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and

Development, 22(1), 7-16.

Heikinheimo, P., & Shute, J. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student views

and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(5), 399-

406.

Heitner, R. M., Hoekje, B. J., & Braciszewski, P. L. (2014). Keys to college: Tracking

English language proficiency and IELTS test scores in an international

undergraduate conditional admission program in the United States. In J. Connor-

Linton & L. Wander Amoroso (Eds.), Quantitative Studies of Acquisition,

Assessment, and Variation (pp. 182-197). Georgetown, WA: Georgetown

University Press.

Hirsch, D. (2007). English language, academic support and academic outcomes: A

discussion paper. Paper presented at TESOL, Sydney, Australia.

Hoffman, E. (1989). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. New York: Penguin

Books.

157

Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C. J. (1987). Self-efficacy social support, and depression in

aging: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 42(1), 65-68.

Holgado-Trello, F. P., Chacon-Moscoso, S., Barbero-Garcia, I., & Vila-Abad, E. (2010).

Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor

analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153-166.

Honegger, R. (2016). Variables that impact the academic performance of linguistically

and culturally diverse students: Their cross-cultural journey from an intensive

English program to the university (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University

of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette LA.

Hull, W. F., & Lemke, W. H. (1978). Foreign students in the United States of America:

Coping behavior within the educational environment. New York, NY: Praeger

Publishers.

Hurny, G. L. (2014). An empirical study of the factors influencing the cultural adjustment

of undergraduate Chinese international students to the United States (Doctoral

dissertation, Colorado State University). Retrieved from

https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/handle/10217/88438

Isaacs, T. (2014). Assessing pronunciation. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to

language assessment (pp. 140-155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Jacobs, J. A., & King, R. B. (2002). Age and college completion: A life-history analysis

of women aged 15-44. Sociology of Education, 75(3), 211-230.

Jalomo, R. E. (1995). Latino students in transition: An analysis of the first-year

experience in community college (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona

State University, Tempe, AZ.

158

James, M. A. (2014). Learning transfer in English-for-academic-purposes contexts: A

systematic review of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 1-

13.

Jensen, C., & Hansen, C. (2003). Assessment in intensive English language programs. In

D. Douglas (Ed.), English language testing in U.S. colleges and universities (2nd

ed., pp. 85-103). Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International

Educators.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for

teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kahn, J. H., & Nauta, M. M. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of first-year college

persistence: The importance of proximal assessment. Research in Higher

Education, 42(6), 633-652.

Kaplan, R. B. (1997). An IEP is a many-splendored thing. In M. A. Christison & F. L.

Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 3-19).

Provo, UT: Alta Book Center.

Kasworm, C. E. (2003). Adult meaning making in the undergraduate classroom. Adult

Education Quarterly, 53(2), 81-98. doi:10.1177/0741713602238905

Kasworm, C. E. (2010). Adult learners in a research university: Negotiating

undergraduate student identity. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(2), 143-160.

doi:10.1177/0741713609336110

Kasworm, C. E., & Pike, G. R. (1994). Adult undergraduate students: Evaluating the

appropriateness of a traditional model of academic performance. Research in

Higher Education, 35(6), 689-710.

159

Kasworm, C. E., Polson, C. J., & Fishback, S. J. (2002). Responding to adult learners in

higher education (Original ed). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Kasworm, C. E., Sandmann, L. R., & Sissel, P. A. (2000). Adults in higher education. In

S. B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing

education (pp. 449-463). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kawamoto, A., Youn, S. J., Batholomew, T. T., Castonguay, L. G., & Locke, B. D. (2017).

Inter- and intra-group differences in psychological concerns among international

students. Counselling Psychology Quarterly.

doi:10.1080/09515070.2016.1274962

Kelley, K., & Bolin, J. H. (2013). Multiple regression. In T. Teo (Ed.), Handbook of

quantitative methods for educational research (pp. 71-101). Boston: Sense.

Kim, S. (2015). The influence of social relationships on international students' intentions

to remain abroad: multi-group analysis by marital status. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(14), 1848-1864.

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of

research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kinginger, C. (2013). Language socialization in study abroad. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.),

The encyclopedia of applied linguistics: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Kolenikov, S., & Bollen, K. A. (2012). Testing Negative Error Variances: Is a Heywood

Case a Symptom of Misspecification? Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1),

124-167.

160

Kraft, L., & Redman, N. (2017). Recruitment strategies for intensive English programs In

J. Black Sandberg (Ed.), NAFSA's guide to international student recruitment (3rd

ed., pp. 207-223). Washington, DC: NAFSA Association of International

Educators.

Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.

(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and

psychological well-being. American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

Kwai, C. K. C. (2009). Model of international student persistence: Factors influencing

retention of international undergraduate students at two public statewide four-

year university systems (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertation & Theses A&I (Order No. 3390997)

Kwon, Y. (2009). Factors affecting international students' transition to higher education

institutions in the United States: From the perspective of office of international

students. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1020-1036.

http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

Lado, R. (1961). Language testing; the construction and use of foreign language tests: A

teacher's book. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2001). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical

assessment. Theory and Society, 32(5), 567-606.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In W. D. Gentry (Ed.), The

handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282-325). New York: Guileford.

161

Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in

EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1-11.

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of

discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381-409.

Leggett, K. (2013). Influx from the Middle East. International Educator, 22(6), 44-47.

Leki, I. (2001). “A narrow thinking system”: Nonnative‐English‐speaking students

ingroup projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 39-67.

Leong, F. T. L., & Chou, E. L. (1994). The Role of Ethnic Identity and Acculturation in

the Vocational Behavior of Asian Americans: An Integrative Review. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 44(2), 155-172. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1011

Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students' perspectives on cross-cultural

adaptation. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19(2), 167-

185.

Li, X., & Chen, W. (2014). Facebook or Renren? A comparative study of social

networking site use and social capital among Chinese international students in the

United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 116-123.

Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. L. (2010). Determinants of international students'

academic performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international

students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 389-405.

162

Light, R. L., Xu, M., & Mossop, J. (1987). English proficiency and academic

performance of international students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 251-261.

doi:10.2307/3586734

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Lin, J. H., Peng, W., Kim, M., Kim, S. Y., & LaRose, R. (2012). Social networking and

adjustments among international students. New Media & Society, 14(3), 421-440.

Lin, X., & Wang, C. H. (2015). Factors that affect returning to graduate school for

international and American adult learners. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1,

40-53.

Long, Y. (2013). Exploring Chinese international students' perceptions of their

experience in an intensive English program at a US Midwestern university

(Master's thesis). University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln NE. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsedaddiss/139/

Looney, R. E. (1986). Venezuela's economic crisis: Origins and successes in stabilization.

The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 11(3), 327-337.

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the

exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88-91.

MacKinnon-Slaney, F. (1994). The adult persistence in learning model: A road map to

counseling services for adult learners. Journal of Counseling & Development,

72(3), 268-275.

Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in US postsecondary

institutions. Higher Education, 64(1), 1-17.

163

Kiyama, J. M., & Luca, S. G. (2014). Structured opportunities: Exploring the social and

academic benefits for peer mentors in retention programs. Journal of College

Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15(4), 489-514.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the

study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance

across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562-582.

Martinez Jr, C. R., McClure, H. H., & Eddy, J. M. (2009). Language brokering contexts

and behavioral and emotional adjustment among Latino parents and adolescents.

The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1), 71-98.

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of

labor. College Composition and Communication, 50(4), 699-721.

Mattanah, J. F., Ayers, J. F., Brand, B. L., Brooks, L. J., Quimby, J. L., & McNary, S. W.

(2010). A social support intervention to ease the college transition: Exploring

main effects and moderators. Journal of College Student Development, 51(1), 93-

108.

Mattern, K. D., & Shaw, E. J. (2010). A look beyond cognitive predictors of academic

success: Understanding the relationship between academic self-beliefs and

outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 51(6), 665-678.

http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

McCoy, D. L., & Winkle-Wagner, R. (2015). Bridging the divide: Developing a scholarly

habitus for aspiring graduate students through summer bridge programs

participation. Journal of College Student Development, 56(5), 423-439.

164

Mechur Karp, M. (2012). “I don't know, I've never been to college!” Dual enrollment as a

college readiness strategy. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(158), 21-

28.

Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social

support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in

the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(2), 137-157.

Morales, A., & Hanson, W. E. (2005). Language brokering: An integrative review of the

literature. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(4).

Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 137-144.

Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL

graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 279-310.

Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating Participation and Identity in Second Language Academic

Communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. doi:10.2307/3588281

Morley, J., Robinett, B. W., Selinker, L., & Woods, D. (1984). ESL theory and the Fries

legacy. JALT Journal, 6(2), 171-207.

Moulton, W. G. (1963). Linguistics and language teaching in the United States: 1940—

1960. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,

1(1), 21-41.

Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A

new theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In B.

M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume

29 (pp. 189-227). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

165

Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and

ethnic minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education,

33(1), 67-94.

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/review_of_higher_education/v033/33.1.museus.htm

Myers-Walls, J. A., Frias, L. V., Kwon, K. A., Ko, M. J. M., & Lu, T. (2011). Living life

in two worlds: Acculturative stress among Asian international graduate student

parents and spouses. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 455-478.

Natera, L. (1998). Self-efficacy, stress, and adjustment in Latino college students.

(Unpublished master's thesis), University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ.

Nora, A. (2001). The depiction of significant others in Tinto's "Rites of Passage": A

reconceptualization of the influence of family and community in the persistence

process. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 41-56.

http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination

on the adjustment of minority students to college. The Journal of Higher

Education, 119-148.

Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2008). Mentoring students: Conceptualizing and validating the

multi-dimensions of a support system. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(3),

337. http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological Theory. New York: McGraw

Hill.

166

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2009). Language acquisition and socialization: Three

developmental stories and their implications. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic

anthropology: A reader (pp. 296-328). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance

life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect,

perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in

Human Behavior, 30(69-78).

Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation

coefficient. Psychometrika, 44(4), 443-460.

Osborne, J. W., Costello, A. B., & Kellow, T. J. (2008). Best practices in exploratory

factor analysis. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp.

86-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Oswalt, M. (2015). Perspectives on the College Readiness and Outcome Achievement of

Former Intensive English Language Program (IELP) Students Unpublished

master’s thesis). Portland State University, Portland OR.

Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1988). Development of a college academic self-efficacy

scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on

Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED298158.pdf

Ozmun, C. D. (2013). College and academic self-efficacy as antecedents for high school

dual-credit enrollment. The Community College Enterprise, 19(1), 61-73.

167

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A.

Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16-31).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pan, Y. (2014). Transcendence of time and space: The lived experiences of Chinese

international graduate students in the United States (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses A&I (Order No. 3682801)

Park, N., Song, H., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites and other media use,

acculturation stress, and psychological well-being among East Asian college

students in the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 138-146.

Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English

language learning. In J. Cummings & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook

of English language teaching (pp. 669-680). New York: Springer.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary

dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51,

60-75.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade

of research (2 ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The counseling psychologist,

19(1), 10-58.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and

prediction (3rd ed). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL

Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.

168

Perna, L. W. (2000). Differences in the decision to attend college among African

Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 117-

141.

Perrucci, R., & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences

among international graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491-

508.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-24.

Powell, W. W. (2001). Looking back, looking forward: Trends in intensive English

program enrollments. Princeton, NJ Educational Testing Service.

Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Nora, A., McPherson, R., & Pisecco, S. (2002). Relation

between assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and psychosocial adjustment

among international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development,

43, 632-642.

Poyrazli, S., & Kavanaugh, P. R. (2006). Marital status, ethnicity, academic achievement,

and adjustment strains: the case of graduate international students. College

student journal, 40(4), 767. http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/

Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al‐Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and

demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of

College Counseling, 7(1), 73-82.

Purpura, J. E. (2004). Accessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

169

Qing, K. G., Harney, A., Stecklow, S., & Pomfret, J. (May 25, 2016). How an industry

helps Chinese students cheat their way into and through U.S. colleges. Reuters.

from http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/college-cheating-iowa/

Quimby, J. L., & O'Brien, K. M. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision‐making

self‐efficacy among nontraditional college women. The Career Development

Quarterly, 52(4), 323-339.

Raines, J. M. (2012). FirstSTEP: A preliminary review of the effects of a summer bridge

program on pre-college STEM majors. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations

and Research, 13(1), 22.

Rajapaksa, S., & Dundes, L. (2002). It's a long way home: International student

adjustment to living in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention:

Research, Theory & Practice, 4(1), 15-28. doi:10.2190/5hcy-u2q9-kvgl-8m3k

Ramos‐Sánchez, L., & Nichols, L. (2007). Self‐efficacy of first‐generation and non‐first‐

generation college students: The relationship with academic performance and

college adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10(1), 6-18.

Ramsay, S., Jones, E., & Barker, M. (2007). Relationship between adjustment and

support types: Young and mature-aged local and international first year university

students. Higher Education, 54(2), 247-265. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9001-0

Rayner, C. (2013). Exploring the protective role of perceived social support on physical

health in the retirement transition (Unpublished master's thesis). Massey

University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

170

Redden, E. (2013, January 3). Conditionally yours. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved May 14,

2017, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/03/conditional-

admission-and-pathway-programs-proliferate

Redden, E. (2016, March 22). Growth in Middle Eastern students at Idaho State causes

tensions. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2016, August 3, from

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/03/22/growth-middle-eastern-

students-idaho-state-causes-tensions

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly,

23(1), 87-111.

Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study

of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),

Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do

psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261.

Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. (2001). Identifying the Reading, Writing,

Speaking, and Listening Tasks Important for Academic Success at the

Undergraduate and Graduate Levels. TOEFL Monograph Series MS-21.

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Rose-Redwood, C. R., & Rose-Redwood, R. S. (2013). Self-segregation or global

mixing?: Social interactions and the international student experience. Journal of

College Student Development, 54(4), 413-429.

171

Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional

loneliness: An examination of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1313-1321.

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale:

Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 39(3), 472-480.

Sandekian, R. E., Weddington, M., Birnbaum, M., & Keen, J. K. (2015). A narrative

inquiry into academic experiences of female Saudi graduate students at a

comprehensive doctoral university. Journal of Studies in International Education,

19(4), 360-378.

Saul, S. (2016, March 21). The Mideast came to Idaho State. It was not a good fit. The

New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language Socialization. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 15, 163-191.

http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/2155759

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 15(1), 163-191.

Schmiegel, G. (2017). It takes a village: Recruiting, enrolling, and supporting sponsored

students in your institution In J. Black Sandberg (Ed.), NAFSA's guide to

international student recruitment (3rd ed., pp. 137-151). Washington DC: NAFSA

Association of International Educators.

172

Schumann, J. H. (1976). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis.

Language Learning, 26(2), 391-408.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language

acquisition. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379-392.

Schwartz, L. S. (2016). The language learning needs of beginner-level international

students enrolled in intensive English programs affiliated with American

institutions of higher education: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses A&I (Order No. 10242621)

Selz, S. R. (2014). Beyond English language instruction: The academic and social

experiences of former intensive English program students at the University of

Minnesota (Master's thesis). Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital

Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/164665

Shaw, D. L. (2010). Bridging differences: Saudi Arabian students reflect on their

educational experiences and share success strategies (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses A&I (Order No. 3401195)

Smith, E. W. (2015). Undergraduate international student persistence at a large, public

U.S. institution (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3365

Smith, T. B., Bowman, R., & Hsu, S. (2007). Racial attitudes among Asian and European

American college students: A cross-cultural examination. College Student

Journal, 4(2), 436-448.

173

Solberg, V. S. (1991). The role of intimate social support in promoting college adjustment

of ethnic minority freshman (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

California, Santa Barbara.

Solberg, V. S., O'Brien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self-efficacy

and Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument.

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 80-95.

Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of Self-Efficacy, Social Support, and

Stress as Predictors of Psychological and Physical Distress among Hispanic

College Students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 182-201.

doi:10.1177/07399863970192006

South, C. (1992). Intensive ESL Course Performance as a Predictor of Academic Success

(Master's thesis). Portland State University. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED361993.pdf

Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and

synthesis. Interchange, 1(1), 64-85.

Spady, W. G. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model.

Interchange, 2(3), 38-62. doi:10.1007/bf02282469

Staczek, J. J., & Carkin, S. J. (1984). Intensive English program fit in traditional

academic settings: Practices and promise. (ED274166). ERIC Clearinghouse on

Adult Career and Vocational Education. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED274187.pdf.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization

of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-41.

174

Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of

inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students.

Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116-135.

Steen, S. J., & De Angelis, C. (1997). English language & Orientation programs in the

United States offered by U.S. institutions of higher education and private

language schools. Annapolis Junction, MD: Institute of International Education

(IIE).

Stevens, J., Ammerman, R. T., Putnam, F. G., & Van Ginkel, J. B. (2002). Depression and

trauma history in first‐time mothers receiving home visitation. Journal of

Community Psychology, 30(5), 551-564.

Stolle-McAllister, K. (2011). The case for summer bridge: Building social and cultural

capital for talented Black STEM students. Science Educator, 20(2), 12-22.

http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

Stoller, F. L. (1999). Time for change: A hybrid curriculum for EAP programs. TESOL

Journal, 8(1), 9-13.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’

preparation for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral

Scientist, 55(2), 142-159. doi:10.1177/0002764210381871

Sümer, S., Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. (2008). Predictors of depression and anxiety

among international students. Journal of Counseling and Development: JCD,

86(4), 429.

Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students: A cause for

concern. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 240-245.

175

Syverson, P. D. (1996). Assessing demand for graduate and professional programs. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 92, 17-29.

Szasz, P. (2010). State of the profession: Intensive English programs. CATESOL Journal,

21(1), 194-201.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

Tennant, M. (2012). The learning self: Understanding the potential for transformation.

New York: Wiley & Sons.

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1976). The Relation of Freshman Students' Social

and Academic Integration to Attrition. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the

Association for Institutional Research, Los Angeles, CA.

Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Passing the first year of college: Rethinking the

effects of college on students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.

Thackaberry, M. D., & Liston, A. (1986). Recruitment and admissions: Special issues and

ethical considerations. New Directions for Student Services, 36, 29-37.

Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.

The Journal of Higher Education, 603-618.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of

Higher Education, 68, 1-16.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

176

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition

(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2000). Linking Learning and Leaving: Exploring the Role of the College

Classroom in Student Departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the Student

Departure Puzzle (pp. 234-269). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Todey, E. F. (2014). How are we helping our second language writers improve their

writing? The case of English 101C and English 150 at Iowa State University

(Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13809

Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, and

family support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 59(1), 53-63.

Trepte, S., Dienlin, T., & Reinecke, L. (2015). Influence of social support received online

and offline contexts on satisfaction with social support and satisfaction with life:

A longitudinal study. Media Psychology, 18(1), 74-105.

Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students' social interactions with

American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671-687.

Tsang, E. Y. H. (2013). The quest for higher education by the Chinese middle class:

retrenching social mobility? Higher Education, 66(6), 653-668.

Tse, L. (1996). Language brokering in linguistic minority communities: The case of

Chinese-and Vietnamese-American students. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(3-4),

485-498.

177

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. Vizedon & G. Caffee, Trans.). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or

component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for

determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes

(Eds.), Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment: Honoring Douglas N.

Jackson at Seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston: Kluwer.

Villalpando, O., & Solórzano, D. G. (2005). The role of culture in college preparation

programs: A review of the research literature. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J.

E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp.

13-28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (2012). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An

opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research &

Development, 31(1), 21-37.

Wang, J. (2009). A study of resiliency characteristics in the adjustment of international

graduate students at American universities. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 13(1), 22-45.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, Language, and Epistemology: Toward a Language

Socialization Paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331-350.

http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. Smart

(Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research in Higher Education (pp. 289-322).

New York: Agathon.

178

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto

others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weisskirch, R. S., & Alva, S. A. (2002). Language brokering and the acculturation of

Latino children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(3), 369-378.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with

nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural

equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Wills, T. A. (1991). Social support and interpersonal relationships. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),

Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 265-289). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Winkle, C. A. (2013). University partnerships with the corporate sector: Faculty

experiences with for-profit matriculation pathway programs. Boston, MA: Brill.

Winters, D. M. (2015). Success and the other[ed] woman: Examining the persistence of

female students from Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (Order No. 10161354)

Wu, W., & Hammond, M. (2011). Challenges of university adjustment in the UK: A study

of East Asian Master's degree students. Journal of Further and Higher Education,

35(3), 423-438.

Wu, Y.-L., & Wu, H.-C. (2015). Higher education learning experiences among

Vietnamese immigrant women in Taiwan. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(2), 133-

151. doi:10.1177/0741713614566673

179

Yan, K. (2017). Chinese international students’ stressors and coping strategies in the

United States. Singapore: Springer.

Ye, J. (2006). An examination of acculturative stress, interpersonal social support, and

use of online ethnic social groups among Chinese international students. The

Howard Journal of Communications, 17(1), 1-20.

Ying, Y. W., & Liese, L. H. (1990). Initial adaptation of Taiwan foreign students to the

United States: The impact of prearrival variables. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 18(6), 825-845.

York, C. M., & Tross, S. A., (1994). Evaluation of student retention programs: An

essential component. Paper presented at The First Annual SUCCEED Conference

on Improvement of Engineering Education. Raleigh, NC.

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and

academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.

Zhai, L. (2002). Studying international students: Adjustment issues and social support.

(ED 474481).

Zhang, J., & Norvilitis, J. M. (2002). Measuring Chinese psychological well-being with

Western developed instruments. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(3), 492-

511.

Zhao, C.-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A Comparison of International Student

and American Student Engagement in Effective Educational Practices. The

Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209-231.

http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/

180

Zimmerman, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and

international student adaptation to an American campus. Communication

Education, 44(4), 321-335.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the

number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432-445.

181

Appendix A

Conversion Table for IELTS, TOEFL ibt, and TOEFL pbt Scores

Table A.1 Conversion Table of IELTS and TOEFL Scores to Create

score_TOEFL_IELTS variable

score ≤ 4.0 score ≤ 31 score ≤ 397

score = 4.5 32 ≤ score ≤ 34 400 score ≤ 413

score = 5.0 35 ≤ score ≤ 45 417 score ≤ 447

score = 5.5 46 ≤ score ≤ 59 450 score ≤ 497

score = 6.0 60 ≤ score ≤ 78 500 score ≤ 547

score = 6.5 79 ≤ score ≤ 93 550 score ≤ 583

score = 7.0 94 ≤ score ≤ 101 587 score ≤ 603

score = 7.5 102 ≤ score ≤ 109 607 score ≤ 633

score = 8.0 110 ≤ score ≤ 114 637 score ≤ 647

score = 8.5 115 ≤ score ≤ 117 650 score ≤ 663

score = 9.0 118 ≤ score ≤ 120 667 score ≤ 677

bConversion table between TOEFL pbt score and TOEFL ibt score adapted from Educational Testing

Services (ETS) source material (Compare TOEFL Scores, 2017)

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

IELTS = International English Language Test System

TOEFLibt = Test of English for Speakers of Other Languages, Internet-based test

TOEFLpbt = Test of English for Speakers of Other Languages, Paper-based test

6.0

TOEFL ibt score(a) TOEFL pbt score(b)IELTS score

aConversion table between TOEFL ibt score and IELTS score adapted from Educational Testing

Services (ETS) source material (TOEFL Internet-based Test: Score Comparison Tables, 2005)

score_TOEFL

_IELTS

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

182

Appendix B

Results of English language gains attributed to IEP Factor Analysis

Table B.1 Skewness and Kurtosis of English language gains attributed to IEP

Data (N = 96)

Table B.2 Parallel Analysis using Minimum Rank Factor

Analysis Assuming a One Factor Solution (N = 96)

Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

5.33 1.28 -0.87 -3.53 * 0.77 1.58

5.48 1.30 -0.78 -3.17 0.50 1.01

5.43 1.29 -0.88 -3.57 * 0.81 1.66

5.45 1.17 -1.06 -4.33 * 1.64 3.36

5.42 1.22 -0.85 -3.46 * 0.95 1.95

5.43 1.28 -0.94 -3.83 * 0.88 1.80

5.72 1.22 -1.29 -5.24 * 2.27 4.65 *

5.57 1.20 -1.08 -4.40 * 1.54 3.15 *

5.48 1.31 -0.78 -3.17 0.06 0.11

5.13 1.68 -0.94 -3.83 * 0.14 0.29

5.35 1.67 -1.13 -4.57 * 0.47 0.96

5.24 1.70 -1.10 -4.48 * 0.50 1.03

5.26 1.62 -1.09 -4.43 * 0.62 1.27

5.54 1.41 -1.19 -4.85 * 1.66 3.41 *

5.58 1.43 -1.20 -4.87 * 1.45 2.97

5.58 1.31 -1.07 -4.36 * 1.06 2.17

5.63 1.20 -0.92 -3.74 * 1.16 2.38

Note: Text that appears in survey following some items has been omitted for ease of readibility

Use supporting details for the main ideas in my

z z

Take notes

Understand the main idea in lectures

Understand the supporting information in lectures

Understand unknown vocabulary through context during a lecture

Speak in class

Write in different genres

Identify the main ideas in a text

Identify the supporting ideas in a text

Use appropriate formatting for my writing

Avoid plagiarism in my various writing assignments

Speak in group activities

Scan a text

Speak with a teacher outside of class

Speak with another student outside of class

Skim a text

Variable

Use strategies to give a presentation in class

Real-data

% of

variance

1 65.3a

2 6.7

3 5.0

4 3.9

5 3.2

6 2.8

7 2.6

8 2.0

9 2.0

10 1.8

11 1.6

12 1.2

13 0.9

14 0.5

15 0.3

16 0.2

17 0.0

3.4 4.0

0.8 1.5

0.0 0.0

2.8 3.5

2.2 2.8

1.5 2.2

5.3 5.8

4.7 5.2

4.0 4.7

7.1 7.7

6.5 7.0

5.8 6.4

a. Factor to retain as advised by FACTOR (v. 9.2)

Parallel Analysis using Minimum Rank Factor Analysis

Assuming a One Factor Solution (N = 93)

Variable

Mean of

random % of

variance

95 percentile

of random %

of variance

19.5 21.5

10.7 12.0

9.4 10.3

8.5 9.3

7.8 8.4

183

Table B.3 Results of Factor Loadings Assuming a One Factor Solution

(N = 96)

Variables Factor Loadings

Take notes 0.589

Understand the main ideas in lectures 0.768

Understand supporting information in lectures 0.735

Understand unknown vocabulary through context during a lecture 0.631

Use strategies to give a presentation in class 0.707

Speak in class 0.664

Speak in group activities 0.779

Speak with a teacher outside of class 0.747

Speak with another student outside of class 0.691

Skim a text 0.709

Scan a text 0.798

Identify the main ideas in a text 0.706

Identify supporting ideas in a text 0.704

Use appropriate formatting for my writing assignments 0.705

Avoid plagiarism in my various writing assignments 0.723

Use supporting details for the main ideas in my writing 0.820

Write in different genres 0.756

Note: Text that appears in the survey following some items have been omitted for ease

of readibility

184

Appendix C

Consent to Use the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI)

Figure C.1 Copy of email authorizing the use of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory

185

Appendix D

College Self-Efficacy Inventory with Course Efficacy Items Identified

Items circled in blue represent the Course Efficacy subscale

Figure D.1 Survey items for the College Self-Efficacy Inventory

186

Appendix E

Consent to Use the Social Provisions Scale

Figure E.1 Copy of email authorizing the use of the Social Provisions Scale

187

Appendix F

The Social Provisions Scale

© Daniel Russell & Carolyn Cutrona, 1984

Instructions: In answering the following questions, think about your current relationships with friends, family members, co-workers, community members, and so on. Please indicate to what extent each statement describes your current relationships with other people. Use the following scale to indicate your opinion.

STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

1 2 3 4

So, for example, if you feel a statement is very true of your current relationships, you

would respond with a 4 (strongly agree). If you feel a statement clearly does not describe

your relationships, you would respond with a 1 (strongly disagree).

Rating

1. There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it. 2. I feel that I do not have close personal relationships with other people. 3. There is no one I can turn to for guidance in times of stress. 4. There are people who depend on me for help. 5. There are people who enjoy the same social activities I do. 6. Other people do not view me as competent. 7. I feel personally responsible for the well-being of another person. 8. I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes and beliefs. 9. I do not think other people respect my skills and abilities. 10. If something went wrong, no one would come to my assistance. 11. I have close relationships that provide me with a sense of emotional security and well-being. 12. There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life. 13. I have relationships where my competence and skill are recognized. 14. There is no one who shares my interests and concerns.

188

Rating 15. There is no one who really relies on me for their well-being. 16. There is a trustworthy person I could turn to for advice if I were having problems. 17. I feel a strong emotional bond with at least one other person. 18. There is no one I can depend on for aid if I really need it. 19. There is no one I feel comfortable talking about problems with. 20. There are people who admire my talents and abilities. 21. I lack a feeling of intimacy with another person. 22. There is no one who likes to do the things I do. 23. There are people who I can count on in an emergency. 24. No one needs me to care for them.

Scoring:

A score for each social provision is derived such that a high score indicates that the

individual is receiving that provision. Items that are asterisked should be reversed before

scoring (i.e., 4=1, 3=2, 2=3, 1=4).

1. Guidance: 3*, 12, 16, 19* 2. Reassurance of Worth: 6*, 9*, 13, 20 3. Social Integration: 5, 8, 14*, 22* 4. Attachment: 2*, 11, 17, 21* 5. Nurturance: 4, 7, 15*, 24* 6. Reliable Alliance: 1, 10*, 18*, 23

Figure F.1 Survey items and scoring instructions for the Social Provisions Scale

189

Appendix G

Survey for the English Language Gains in IEP Measures

English Language Program Experiences and University Adjustment

Consent for Research

Title of Project: Intensive English Programs and University Adjustment

Principal Investigator: Tom Spencer

Address: __________________University Park, PA, 16802

Telephone Number: _____________________ Advisor: Esther Prins Advisor Telephone Number: _________________ I am asking you to be in a research study. This form gives you information about the

research. Whether or not you take part is up to you. You can choose not to take part. You

can agree to take part and later change your mind. Your decision will not be held against

you. Please ask questions about anything that is unclear to you and take your time to make

your choice.

1. Why is this research study being done? I am asking you to be in this research because you

have studied in at least one Intensive English Program (IEP) and are currently in your first

semester of study at an American university. I am interested in your experiences in Intensive

English Programs and your experiences at the university. Please note that your program may

have the words “Intensive English Program” in its name, but you have been contacted because

your program qualifies you for this study. When you see the words IEP in this program, please

think of the program or programs that you attended on an American university campus where you

studied English.

2. What will happen in this research study? You will be asked to complete an on-line survey.

You will only need to complete this survey once. The survey should take less than 15 minutes to

complete.

3. What are the risks and possible discomforts from being in this research study? There are

no foreseeable risks associated with this study.

4. What are the possible benefits from being in this research study? This survey provides

you with the opportunity to reflect on your experiences and understand what you may have

gained as a result of participating in Intensive English Programs as well as what you’re

experiences have been to this point in your university—both in and out of the classroom.

If you choose to provide your email at the end of the survey, you will receive a $10 amazon.com

gift card and you will be entered in a raffle to win a $100 amazon.com gift card.

5. How long will you take part in this research study? If you agree to take part, it should take

you less than 15 minutes to complete the on-line survey.

6. How will your privacy and confidentiality be protected if you decide to take part in this

research study? Efforts will be made to limit the use and sharing of your personal research

information to people who have a need to review this information. Your participation in this

research is confidential. Your name will never be used. All data from the survey will be stored on

the researcher’s password-protected computer. In the event of any publication or presentation

resulting from the research, no personally identifiable information will be shared. I will do my

best to keep your participation in this research study confidential to the extent permitted by law.

However, it is possible that other people may find out about your participation in this research

study. For example, the following people/groups may check and copy records about this

research. ·

190

The Office for Human Research Protections in the U. S. Department of Health and Human

Services · The Institutional Review Board (a committee that reviews and approves research

studies) and · The Office for Research Protections. Some of these records could contain

information that personally identifies you. Reasonable efforts will be made to keep the personal

information in your research record private. However, absolute confidentiality cannot be

guaranteed.

7. What are your rights if you take part in this research study? Taking part in this research study is voluntary. § You do not have to be in this research. § If

you choose to be in this research, you have the right to stop at any time. § If you decide not to be

in this research or if you decide to stop at a later date, there will be no penalty or loss of benefits

to which you are entitled.

8. If you have questions or concerns about this research study, whom should you

call? Please call the head of the research study (principal investigator), Tom Spencer at

_____________if you: § Have questions, complaints or concerns about the research. § Believe

you may have been harmed by being in the research study. You may also contact the Office

for Research Protections at ___________, OR ______________ if you: § Have questions

regarding your rights as a person in a research study. § Have concerns or general questions

about the research. § You may also call this number if you cannot reach the research team or

wish to talk to someone else about any concerns related to the research. INFORMED

CONSENT TO TAKE PART IN RESEARCH Consent: By completing and submitting the

electronic survey below, you agree that you have read and understood the above information,

have had the opportunity to have all your questions answered, are at least 18 years old, and

hereby consent to voluntarily participate in this study. Do not leave the survey open if using a

public computer or a computer others may have access to. Upon completion of this survey, please

clear your web browser’s cache and history page after you submit the survey in order to protect

your privacy.

1) Which best describes you?

I am…

[ ] An undergraduate student at an American college or university

[ ] A graduate student at an American college or university

[ ] Not an undergraduate or graduate student at an American college or university

2) Which best describes you?

[ ] This is my first semester as an undergraduate student

[ ] This is my first semester as a graduate student

[ ] This is not my first semester as an undergraduate or graduate student

191

3) Think about your current college classes. How much confidence do you have about doing

each of the abilities listed below? Circle the number that best represents your confidence.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Very Unconfident Somewhat Neither unconfident Somewhat Confident Very

unconfident unconfident nor confident confident confident

I am confident I can…

a) Take good class notes -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

b) Do research for a class paper -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

c) Understand my textbooks -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

d) Write a course paper -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

e) Do well on my exams -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

f) Manage my time effectively -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

g) Ask a question in a large class -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

4) Think about all the people you know where you currently live (e.g., friends,

classmates, family). Circle the number that best represents how strongly you agree

with each statement. -2 -1 0 1 2

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree agree

a) There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it -2 -1 0 1 2

b) I feel that I have close personal relationships with other people -2 -1 0 1 2

c) There is someone I can turn to for guidance in times of stress -2 -1 0 1 2

d) There are other people who enjoy the same social activities I do -2 -1 0 1 2

e) Other people view me as competent -2 -1 0 1 2

f) I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes and beliefs -2 -1 0 1 2

g) I think other people respect my skills and abilities -2 -1 0 1 2

h) If something went wrong, someone would come to my assistance -2 -1 0 1 2

i) I have close relationships that provide me with a sense of emotional

security and well-being

-2 -1 0 1 2

j) There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life -2 -1 0 1 2

k) I have relationships where my competence and skills are recognized -2 -1 0 1 2

l) There is someone who shares my interests and concerns -2 -1 0 1 2

m) There is a trustworthy person I could turn to for advice if I were

having problems

-2 -1 0 1 2

n) I feel a strong emotional bond with at least one other person -2 -1 0 1 2

o) There is someone I can depend on for aid if I really need it -2 -1 0 1 2

p) There is someone I feel comfortable talking about my problems with -2 -1 0 1 2

q) There are people who admire my talents and abilities -2 -1 0 1 2

r) I have a feeling of intimacy with another person -2 -1 0 1 2

s) There is someone who likes the things I do -2 -1 0 1 2

t) There are people I can count on in an emergency -2 -1 0 1 2

192

5) Think about your experiences in the IEP(s) you attended. Below, please indicate how

strongly you agree with the following statements about how well the IEP(s) helped to

improve these specific skills.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree nor agree agree agree

Think back to your experiences in the IEP(s) you attended. Below, please indicate how strongly

you agree with the following statements about how well the IEP(s) helped to improve these

specific skills in English

a) take notes (for example during a lecture, while another student or

the teacher is speaking, while listening to a recording of someone

speaking)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

b) understand the main ideas in lectures 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

c) understand supporting information in lectures 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

d) understand unknown vocabulary through context during a lecture 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

e) skim a text 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

f) scan a text 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

g) identify the main idea in a text 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

h) identify supporting information in a text 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

i) use strategies to give presentations in class (for example, note

reading too much from notes, add information to presentation

slides so that they are easy to read, invite questions from the

audience)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

j) speak in class (for example, ask the teacher a question about a

homework assignment, answer a question asked by another

student)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

k) speak in small group activities in class (for example, paraphrase

another speaker’s words, disagree with another student, describe

an idea to the group)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

l) speak with a teacher outside of class (for example, during office

hours)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

m) speak with another student outside of class 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

n) use appropriate formatting for my writing assignments (for

example, add page numbers, charts, graphs, a bibliography when

necessary)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

o) avoid plagiarism in my various writing assignments (for example,

use in-text citations, use quotes, use strategies for paraphrasing)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

p) use supporting details and examples for the main ideas in my

writing

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

q) write in different genres (for example, compare & contrast,

narrative writing, research paper)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

r) use course management programs (for example, Blackboard,

ANGEL, Schoology)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

s) use slide show presentation programs (for example, Microsoft

PowerPoint, Prezi)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

t) use word processing programs (for example, Microsoft Word) 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

193

u) use apps for smart phones or tablets that help me participate in

class (for example, a dictionary, google translate)

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

6) Again, think back to your experiences in the IEP(s) you attended. Please indicate how

strongly you agree that your experience in the IEP(s) helped to improve these things

a) English grammar 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

b) English vocabulary 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

7) Gender:

Man [ ] Woman [ ]

8) How old are you?

_____________________

9) Are you married?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

a. If you are not married, do you live with someone with whom you have a

romantic relationship?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

10) Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

a. If yes, (Select all that apply to you)

Children 5 or under

Children 6-18 years of age

Children over 18 years of age, but still legally dependent (for example, in college

disabled)

Independent adult children over 18 years of age

Sick or disabled partner (for example, spouse, romantic partner)

Senior or other family member

11) What is your home country?

___________________________

12) What is your first or “native” language?

___________________

13) What is your citizenship status in U.S. (Select all that apply to you)

194

A visa holder (such as F-1, J-1, H1-B, and U)

Permanent Resident

Refugee status

U.S. citizen, birth

U.S. citizen, naturalized

Other status

14) Are you employed?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

15) How are you paying for your education? (Select all that apply to you)

[ ] Personal credit card

[ ] Family contribution

[ ] Graduate assistantship/fellowship

[ ] Grant/needs based scholarship

[ ] International government scholarship

[ ] Job or internship

[ ] Loans

[ ] Other method of payment

16) What is the highest level of education your father completed?

[ ] No high school

[ ] Some high school

[ ] Completed high school

[ ] Some college

[ ] Business/Technical certificate/degree

[ ] Associate’s degree

[ ] Bachelor’s degree

[ ] Some graduate work

[ ] Master’s degree

[ ] Doctoral degree

[ ] Professional degree (for example, MD, JD)

[ ] Unknown

17) What was the highest level of education your mother completed?

195

[ ] No high school

[ ] Some high school

[ ] Completed high school

[ ] Some college

[ ] Business/Technical certificate/degree

[ ] Associate’s degree

[ ] Bachelor’s degree

[ ] Some graduate work

[ ] Master’s degree

[ ] Doctoral degree

[ ] Professional degree (for example, MD, JD)

[ ] Unknown

18) What was the highest level of education you have completed?

[ ] No high school

[ ] Some high school

[ ] Completed high school

[ ] Some college

[ ] Business/Technical certificate/degree

[ ] Associate’s degree

[ ] Bachelor’s degree

[ ] Some graduate work

[ ] Master’s degree

[ ] Doctoral degree

[ ] Professional degree (for example, MD, JD)

19) What is your highest English language test score?

IELTS ______ TOEFL IB ____ TOEFL IBT ____

20) How many IEPs have you attended in the past 5 years? _____

21) In total, approximately how long did you spend in (an) IEP program(s)? Calculate by months.

If you spent more than 24 months in (an) IEP(s), select 24

22) What is the college or university you are currently attending?

23) Is the most recent IEP you attended located on the same campus where you currently attend

college or university?

24) Was the college or university your first choice to attend?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

196

25) What is your major (undergraduate) or field of study (graduate), if undecided, write

“undecided”

26) Please indicate how strongly agree with this statement:

“I see myself eventually graduating from the current college or university I’m attending.”

1-------------2----------------3-----------------4------------------5------------------6------------------7

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree

27) Do any of your family members currently study at the same university as you?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

28) Did you participate in any of the following clubs/organizations while you were in (an)

IEP(s)?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

a. Select all the clubs or organizations you participated in while you were in (an)

IEP(s)

[ ] Cultural/International (for example, The Latino Cultural Club)

[ ] Sports & Recreation (for example, Karate, Soccer)

[ ] Media (for example, film, journalism)

[ ] Performing Arts (for example, Anime Organization, Theater)

[ ] Religious (for example, Christian Student Fellowship, Muslim Student Association)

[ ] Service (for example, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Habitat for Humanity)

[ ] Special Interest (for example, Book Club, 3-D Printing Club)

b. Do you still attend of any of these clubs or organizations?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

29) Please indicate how social you think you were when you studied in (an) IEP(s)? (social

outside of the program)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Very Unsocial Somewhat Neither unsocial Somewhat Social Very

unsocial unsocial nor social social social

30) Approximately how many IEP-sponsored social events did you attend while you were a

student in (an) IEP(s)?

197

________________________________

31) Did you become friends with other IEP students while you were in your IEP(s)?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

a) Do any of these friends currently study at the same college or university campus

as you?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

b) Are you still friends with this person or these people?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

32) Did you become friends with non-IEP students while you were studying at (an) IEP(s)?

Yes [ ] No [ }

a) You answered “yes” to the previous question, do any of these friends currently

study at the same college or university campus as you?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

b) Are you still friends with this person or people?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

33) While you were in (an) IEP(s) did you have interactions with someone whose responsibility

was to help show you what life is like at the university? (for example, peer mentor, transition

partner)

Yes [ ] No [ ]

a. Please indicate how strongly you agree with this statement: This person or people, whose

responsibility it was to help show me what life is like at the university, helped me to learn

about academic life at colleges or university

1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5-------------------6-------------------7

Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Mostly Strongly

disagree disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree agree

b. Please indicate how strongly you agree with this statement: This person or people, whose

responsibility it was to help show me what life is like at the university, helped me to learn

about social life at colleges or university

1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5-------------------6-------------------7

Strongly Mostly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Mostly Strongly

disagree disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree agree

34) Did you communicate with anyone from your intended major or degree program while you

were in (an) IEP(s)? (for example, an academic advisor, professor, or other students from your

major or program)

198

Yes [ ] No [ ]

35) Were you enrolled in a university class while you were at an IEP?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

36) Were you able to visit a university class (not IEP) while you were a student in any IEP?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

35) How would you describe your friends at this university (Select all that apply to you)

[ ] Americans

[ ] Former IEP students

[ ] People from my own country

[ ] Other international students

While you were at the IEP where did you live? Select all that apply to you

[ ] On campus (for example, in a residence hall or dormitory)

[ ] Off campus (for example, in a homestay, a house or an apartment not on campus)

38) While you were a student at (an) IEP, who did you live with? Select all that apply to you

[ ] I lived alone

[ ] with students I was studying with in the IEP

[ ] with students from the university

[ ] with roommates who are not students

[ ] with relatives (for example, cousins, siblings)

[ ] with child/children

[ ] with a husband/wife or romantic partner

[ ] in a homestay

[ ] Other

37) Where do you currently live?

[ ] On campus (for example, in a residence hall or dormitory)

[ ] Off campus (for example, in a homestay, a house or an apartment not on campus)

39) Who do you currently live with? Select all that apply to you

[ ] I lived alone

[ ] with students I was studying with in the IEP

199

[ ] with students from the university

[ ] with roommates who are not students

[ ] with relatives (for example, cousins, siblings)

[ ] with child/children

[ ] with a husband/wife or romantic partner

[ ] in a homestay

[ ] Other

45) What did you find most useful in your IEP(s)?

46) What did you find a waste of time in your IEP(s)?

If you would like to receive a $10 amazon.com gift card, and you are interested in the

$100 amazon.com gift card raffle, please enter your SCHOOL email below. You will

receive the $10 gift card electronically within a week of completing your survey. The

$100 gift card raffle will be conducted when data collection has finished (approximately

4-6 weeks after this survey is first sent out). The winner of the raffle will receive the $100

gift card, electronically, within a week after the raffle has been done.

_______________________________________________________________

Thank you for your help!

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Figure G.1 The survey used to collect data for this study

VITA Tom Spencer

Education The Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D., Adult Education (2017) The Pennsylvania State University, M.A., Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) (2010)

The Evergreen State College, B.A., Liberal Arts (2000)

Work Experience Associate Director of Special Programs & Student Affairs, Lecturer. The Intensive English Language Program at The Pennsylvania State University. (2013 – present) Graduate Research Assistant. The Pennsylvania State University. (2010-2012) Lecturer (English as a Second Language). The Pennsylvania State University. (2008-2010) Lecturer (English as a Foreign Language). Akadamie Jana Amose Komenskeho Prague, Czech Republic.2001-2005)

Scholarly Engagement Conference Presentations Spencer, T (2016, April). “Do IEPs Work?” Presented at the International TESOL Conference, Baltimore, MD. *Gungor, R., & *Spencer, T. (2012, April). “It is so therapeutic to come here: Social support and mental health for women in adult education” Women’s social support networks and mental health in adult education and family literacy programs. Presented at the Commission on Adult Basic Education Conference (COABE), Norfolk, VA. Prins, E., & *Spencer, T. (2011, April). “I don’t feel alone anymore”: Social support and mental health for women in family literacy. Presented at the National Conference on Family Literacy, Louisville, KY.

Publications Prins, E., *Carrera, M., *Drayton, B., *Gungor, R., *Miller, F., & *Spencer, T. (2011, June). Women’s involvement in adult education and family literacy: Consequences for social networks, social support, and mental health. In S. Carpenter, S. Dossa, & B. J. Osborne (Eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd National Conference of the Adult Education Research Conference (AERC) and the 30th National Conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE) (pp. 543-549). Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.