Relationships Among Life Stress, Social Support, Academic Stressors, and Reactions to Stressors of International Students in the United States.

Introduction and Need for the Study The present research examines the predictors of institutional commitment of first-year students at 28 two-year and 23 four-year public institutions. Previous research has demonstrated that institutional commitment is a strong predictor of college students' intent to persist, and ultimately student persistence itself (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993; Nora, Kraemer, & Itzen, 1997; Sandler, 2000, Tinto, 1987, 1993). Since institutional commitment is a precursor or predictor of student-persistence behavior, institutional commitment itself becomes an important object of study. Specifically, the study asks what are the factors that influence student commitment and what are the similarities and differences at two-year and four-year institutions. Institutional commitment has been defined in a number of ways. Included in these definitions are the student's overall impression, satisfaction, sense of belonging, and perception of quality, match with, and attraction to a particular institution (Bean, 1990; Braxton et al., 2000; Nora & Cabrera, 1993; Sandler, 2000; Tinto, 1987; Volkwein, Valle, Blose, & Zhou, 2000). For the purposes of this study, student commitment is defined as a student's overall satisfaction, sense of belonging, impression of educational quality, and willingness to attend the institution again. There are five major reasons why research on institutional commitment is important and needed. First, there is a dearth of empirical studies analyzing multicampus data and the important influence of structural/organizational influences on student outcomes. In discussing his "input-environment-output" (IEO) model, Astin notes the lack of empirical studies analyzing multicampus data and the important contribution of structural/organizational influences on student outcomes (1977, 1984). Updating his model in 1984, Astin points out that while student characteristics serve as important inputs into the outcomes model, the campus environment also provides the context for the student's investment of psychological and physical energy in the learning process. Second, the link between institutional commitment and student persistence plays an important role in the enrollment management and revenue-planning agenda for all institutions of higher education. Public and private institutions alike have budgets that are substantially enrollment driven. Student commitment serves as a valuable planning tool because it predicts subsequent student-persistence behavior. By forecasting and maximizing retention and thus revenue, an institution strengthens its capacity for educational and administrative planning. A third need for such studies is stimulated both by the differences between two-year and four-year institutions and by the paucity of research on these differences (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). The proportion of students leaving college without a degree is almost twice as large at two-year versus four-year campuses. Students beginning at two-year institutions earn a bachelors degree at a rate of 38.4% versus a degree-earning rate of 60.4% for students beginning their studies at four-year institutions (Digest of Educational Statistics, 2001). A comparison of student institutional commitment at two-year and four-year institutions has not been undertaken in any great depth, largely due to a lack of research in the two-year sector. While research on student commitment has been undertaken at many four-year institutions, a search of literature revealed only three studies focusing on institutional commitment at two-year institutions (Mutter, 1992; Nora et al., 1997; Pascarella, 1986). Retention research on four-year institutions cannot automatically be generalized to Community Colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). As a fourth support for this study, the recent emphasis on student commitment and retention by accrediting agencies results in greater attention to policies and practices that improve student retention. …

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458854.pdf

Predictors of Student Commitment at Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions.

Why can’t we be friends?: Multicultural attitudes and friendships with international students

Changes in language learning beliefs as a result of study abroad

This study investigated the development of language-learning motivation during short-term study abroad (SA) for six intermediate-level students of French. Taking an activity theory perspective, findings demonstrated that one of two orientations motivated participants to study or continue studying French at the college level: linguistic motives or career-oriented motives. The choice to study abroad was seen as either a critical step to achieving fluency or a means of travel and cultural learning. Enhanced language-learning motivation emerged to varying degrees for participants with linguistically oriented motives for learning French who viewed SA as a languagelearning experience but not for participants with primarily pragmatic reasons for learning French and participating in SA. Implications of the study include the need for curricular intervention in student learning abroad. Key words: French, activity theory, learning motivation, second language learning, self-regulation, study abroad Introduction From the 1960s through the mid-1990s, research on study abroad (SA) largely supported the notion that it is an ideal means of learning a foreign language. Moreover, foreign language professionals often impart this view to students, typically based on their own successful if not life-transforming experiences (Kinginger, 2008). As Davidson (2007) explained, ''[I]t has long been understood that language acquisition at the highest levels of proficiency is generally not possible without a substantial immersion experience'' (p. 277). However, current trends in American students' SA choices as well as insights from recent research revealing unsupported myths about SA may put some of the foreign language profession's assumptions about it in question. A tempered assessment of SA emerges in light of studies shifting the focus from outcomes to a closer examination of processes at work during SA and perspectives of SA participants. Some key findings from these studies are that participants limit time spent with native speakers in favor of speaking their own language with peers (Freed, Segalowitz, & Dewey, 2004; Wilkinson, 1998, 2000) and that native speakers limit pragmatically appropriate language use so that they can be more readily understood by SA participants (Iino, 2006; Siegal, 1995). Furthermore, SA participants' access to social networks that would most enhance their foreign language learning are particularly challenging for women (Kinginger, 2004; Polanyi, 1995), who represent almost twothirds of Americans studying abroad (Institute of International Education, 2008; see http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/). Given these findings, it is more apparent why learning is not evenly distributed among SA participantsFeven those in the same programF and why learning outcomes are not as dramatic as the foreign language profession might believe (Churchill & DuFon, 2006; Kinginger, 2008). These insights from research are even more salient given present trends in SA participation by U.S. students. Whereas SA once followed a ''Junior Year Abroad model'' largely comprising foreign language majors, this is no longer the case: The majority of students now participate in programs of less than eight weeks' duration, whereas less than 5% do so for an academic year (Institute of International Education, 2008; Kinginger, 2008; see also http://opendoors. iienetwork.org/). As to who studies abroad, foreign language majors constitute only a small percentage (7.2) of SA participants, with majors in social sciences (21%), business and management (19%), and humanities (13%) outnumbering them appreciably (Institute of International Education, 2008; see http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/). As to benefits associated with shortterm SA, research has produced few generalizations, conceivably due to variation in instruments, variables investigated, and study settings and cohorts. Although some studies have reported significant gains in foreign language proficiency (Allen & Herron, 2003; Simoes, 1996) associated with short-term SA, others have cast doubt on its ability to bring about significant linguistic gain (Davidson, 2007; Freed, 1990) or change superior to that of at-home immersion (Freed et al. …

/pdf/language-learning-motivation-during-short-term-study-abroad-qmruezm4nx.pdf

Language-Learning Motivation During Short-Term Study Abroad: An Activity Theory Perspective

Accreditors Revamp Policies To Stress Student Learning.

Study-Abroad Numbers Continue to Climb, Trips Are Shorter, Report Says.

Foreign Enrollments Grow in the U.S., but so Does Competition from Other Nations.

In all, the total number of international students in the United States grew faster in 2011 than it did in 2010 or 2009, as did the number of first-time students—a 6.5-percent increase—which is perhaps a more accurate measure of long-term interest in American education. Growth was particularly strong at the bachelor's level and among students seeking English-language instruction. According to figures generated by Nafsa: Association of International Educators, international students and their dependents contributed $21.8-billion to the American economy in tuition and living expenses.

Beth McMurtrie

Papers

Accreditors Revamp Policies To Stress Student Learning.

Study-Abroad Numbers Continue to Climb, Trips Are Shorter, Report Says.

Foreign Enrollments Grow in the U.S., but so Does Competition from Other Nations.

China Continues to Drive Foreign-Student Growth in the United States.

The Global Campus: American Colleges Connect with the Broader World.