Educating International Students Ethically: Access, Responsiveness and

Competence in U.S. Universities

Final Paper

Qianying (Jenny) Zhang

 Overview

Cross-border education has existed since the earliest formations of higher education,

beginning with the University of Paris opening its doors to scholars outside France to train its

students in the 13th century. In a sense, the academy has always been global in scope (Altbach,

1998). During the European Middle Ages, the use of common languages of instruction, such as

Latin, allowed persistent cross-border flows of students and scholars. Although international

education is old as an idea and concept (James, 2005, p. 314), it had not been widely discussed

until about a century ago.

Human Rights Origin

The rising popularity of intercultural education in the 20th century had an origin in global

human rights movement. It became a well-established field of practice, particularly after the

United Nations documents about the basic rights and UNESCO's two publications: (1)

Recommendations Concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and

Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974) and (2)

Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and

Democracy (1995). These documents were born out of the aftermath of the world wars and were

based on joint will and determination to avoid similar disasters in the future. They are reflections

of the UN search for means and values to safeguard nonviolence and peaceful cooperation

between nations. Education was regarded as a central ingredient in that process, together with

other cultural, social, economic and political agendas.

The United Nations mission to promote education for international understanding,

cooperation and peace is consistent with the Kantian idea of treating others as subjects and as
goals instead of as a means for something. This implies respect, listening and appreciating other

people: the commitment to equity between people, groups and cultural areas. Fruitful

intercultural cooperation also requires the commitment to mutual learning and dialogue. Equal

intercultural dialogue challenges us to evaluate things from new perspectives and to widen our

horizons and scope of caring. As stated before, it can thus become a powerful means for learning

and being creative.

Social benefits

International education creates positive opportunities and yields a variety of benefits,

both to individual students and beyond. In terms of social benefits, students develop an

appreciation for and an understanding of diverse cultures, as well as a sensitivity toward the

people within those cultures. Also, as they interact with people of diverse nationalities, students

dispel myths and stereotypes associated with other cultures. Recent studies have also

touted the cognitive and affective gains for students who interact with persons from other

cultures:

Through engagement with diverse peers, students debate and actively confront

multiple points of view while learning to manage strong emotions engendered by

conflict. These cognitive and emotional processes promote the skills and thinking

abilities needed to make a pluralistic democracy function effectively. (Hurtado,

Engberg, Ponjuan, & Landreman, 2002, p. 164)

Other studies have also addressed the concept of cognitive growth through exposure to

culturally diverse classmates, particularly as non-course interactions and classroom

discussions have led native students to examine their own beliefs and preconceptions
(Heyward, 2002; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, & Nora, 2001).

Economic Benefits

In terms of economic benefits, American students who interact with foreign

students develop intercultural skills and contacts to succeed in a global workforce. In

fact, the belief that globalization places new demands on the workplace is now so

widely accepted that it is a clich (Siaya, Porcelli, & Green, 2002, p. 3). Of immediate

economic benefit in the United States is the monetary contribution made to local

communities and institutions by international students (Hira, 2003; Peterson, et al, 1999).

During the 2005-06 academic year, for example, international students and their families

contributed more than $13.5 billion to the United States economy (Institute, 2006).

Indeed, because of its [economic] potential, international education is now classified as

a traded service by the Department of Commerce and is today the nations fifth-largest

service export (Heyneman, 2003, p. 43).

Higher Education as an Ethical Profession

In a world marked by greater connectedness and ease of movement, knowledge and

awareness of other peoples, countries, cultures and beliefs is of unprecedented importance,

which presents challenges for administrators and faculties as universities and colleges reflect the

changed context. Variety of cultures, global interrelationships, intercultural communication and

expansion of participation require knowledge, new skills and above all reevaluation of earlier

perspectives, attitudes and paradigms. Working in a global and multicultural environment,

international educators are required to the internationalization of education, not merely as a set of

experiences, but as a value-laden set of interactions that produces individuals who are more
knowledgeable, reflective, broad-minded, and aware. So important is this concept that NAFSA:

Association of International Educators (NAFSA, 2009) has declared their commitment to the

following statement of ethical principles:

INTEGRITY We will manifest the highest level of integrity in all our professional

undertakings, dealing with others honestly and fairly, abiding by our commitments, and

always acting in a manner that merits the trust and confidence others have placed in us.

RESPECT FOR THE LAW We will follow all applicable laws and regulations and

carefully and reflectively advise students and scholars regarding those laws and

regulations. We will seek out appropriate guidance and advice when regulations appear

contradictory, ambiguous, or confusing or when a situation is beyond our role or

competency.

QUALITY We will strive constantly to provide high quality and educationally valuable

programs and services. We regularly will evaluate and review our work in order to

improve those programs and services and will seek out and adopt exemplary practices.

COMPETENCE We will undertake our work with the highest levels of competence and

professionalism, regularly seeking and acquiring the training and knowledge necessary to

do so. Our commitment to professional competence will extend to exercising thorough

oversight of external programs and placements. Through careful planning and the

development and implementation of appropriate policies, we will do our utmost to ensure

the safety, security, and success of students, staff, faculty, and scholars.

DIVERSITY In both word and deed we will respect the dignity and worth of all people
and be properly attentive and responsive to the beliefs and cultural commitments of

others. In the planning, development, and implementation of programs and services we

will engage respectfully with the diversity of peoples and perspectives. We will strive to

ensure that our programs reflect the diversity of our institutions and their educational

goals.

TRANSPARENCY We will demonstrate the appropriate level of transparency in

dealings with individuals and organizations. In collaborations with other institutions and

individuals we will proceed on the bases of equality and mutuality. Transactions with

external providers of programs and services will be conducted professionally, always

keeping the welfare of students foremost, and disclosing any potential conflicts of

interests. We will provide faculty, staff, students and scholars with the information they

need to make good decisions about program

participation and to facilitate their adjustment to the locales and cultures where they will

study or work.

ACCESS In planning, developing, and implementing our programs we will strive to

ensure that they are accessible to all qualified individuals, doing our utmost to guarantee

that international education is available to all who desire it and can benefit from it.

RESPONSIVENESS We will maintain open and readily accessible communication with

individuals in our programs and services and with our institutional partners. This includes

providing students with the appropriate level of support based on age, experience,

language ability, and placement.

Ethical Challenges in International Education

 While the NAFSA Code of Ethics is comprised of eight principles, this paper focuses on

three of them: Access, Responsiveness, and Competence based on the idiosyncrasies of the

makeup of the international student population in the United States, as well as the situations they

are faced with while living and studying in a foreign country. In order to test the theories from

the literature that are related to these three ethical principles against actual practice, interviews

with two leaders in international student services: Dr. Rudie Altamirano, the Director of

International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS) at the University of Pennsylvania and Jessica

Cordisco, the Director of International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS) at Drexel University,

are conducted. The interview results concerning each ethical principle will be discussed

separately.

Access

Although the Access Principle states that universities and colleges ought to strive to

guarantee that international education is available to all who desire it and can benefit from it,

both the reality of international recruitment and research on student profiles have suggested that

foreign education at its current state is an option considered almost exclusively by financially

well-off families. This is supported by a few pieces of evidence. First is the concept that students

are viewed not as learners but as consumers or customers spawned by commercialization and

competitive marketization in higher education. In his essay Franchising the University,

Williams (2011) commented on this aspect of viewing students as customers:

Consistent with the ethos of the profit-protocol of the new university, students have been

unabashedly reinvented as consumers, as shoppers at the store of education, buying a

career-enhancing service. This commodification of students interests manifests itself

 ideologically, in projecting their experience primarily as a monetary exchange, paying

tuition for accreditation necessary to get a professional-managerial class job. (p. 22)

Certainly the same is true regarding international students, who may be viewed not only as

consumers of higher education but also as a valuable, even critically essential, source of revenue.

In essence, those who advocate the increase of foreign students for the benefit of diversity and

democracy use the same rhetoric as the neoliberals who justify consumerism in higher education.

They both speak of the economic value foreign students bring to the United States, which

demonstrates the view of the student as a commodity. In fact, international students have become

the patrons whom many cash-strapped public universities heavily depend on to stay financially

afloat. Several state schools are now aggressively recruiting students from abroad, especially

undergraduates who pay a premium compared with in-state students (Jordan, 2015). At the

University of Washington, for example, 18 percent of its freshmen come from abroad, most from

China, each paying tuition of $28,059, about three times as much as students from Washington

State (Lewin, 2012). According to the dean of admissions, this is how low-income

Washingtonians more than a quarter of the class get a free ride. This phenomenon, called

irony of globalization by Habu (2000, p. 62), is that while studying abroad provides great

opportunities for personal and professional growth, it also encourages a narrow view of students

as economic revenue, which in turn can place less emphasis and accountability on their

cross-cultural and academic experiences.

In total, international students contributed $ 30.8 billion to the U.S. economy in the

2014-2015 academic cycle, according to a report published by the Institute of International

Education (IIE, 2015). The same report shows that 65 percent of the international students
present on U.S. campuses are either self- or family-funded. While 22 percent of the population

do receive scholarships and financial aid, a considerable proportion of these recipients are

doctoral students who enjoy full funding regardless of their country of origin or their financial

standing. Thus, among the international student population whose funding is not covered by their

programs, a large majority pay full tuitions upfront, which implies that the international students

who have access to the resources needed to make the decision to study abroad are generally from

higher socio-economic backgrounds.

Interview Results regarding Access

The number of international students is steadily growing at both Drexel University and

the University of Pennsylvania over the past few years. When asked about why their school is

willing to offer so many opportunities to foreign applicants, both Dr. Altamirano and Ms.

Cordisco did not pinpoint financial pressure as a major factor and stressed that it is the diversity

international students can bring to the table that drives the school to keep expanding seats for

them to join the institution and enrich its culture. Both Dr. Altamirano and Ms. Cordisco disagree

with the statement that international students on their campuses are from wealthy backgrounds

and are thus capitalized by the university to gain financial stability. Their counterargument is that

at both universities, there is a strong advocacy by international students asking for more financial

support from the school and both directors indicate that their schools offer scholarships that are

specifically for international students to apply such as their Global Scholar Programs. Moreover,

in order to help international students with lesser means to cope with the financial pressure,

Drexel has added an expanded section on their ISSS website that introduces detailed information

about financial resources, such as country-specific foundations and language-skill-based

scholarships and Penn is in the process of compiling a list of outside financial resources and

scholarship opportunities that international students are eligible for applying. It should be noted

that the international-student-specific scholarships Penn and Drexel provide are granted to a very

small number of students, 8 out of 495 at Drexel and 15 out of 319 at Penn. While there are

students on both campuses who are vocal about their need for more financial assistance, there is

no way of knowing how representative these students are of the overall financial standing of the

entire international student body.

Given the prestige associated with Ivy-League institutions and the enormous amount of

applications they receive from overseas each year, Penn does not actively engage in much

international recruitment. In contrast, Drexel is more strategic in attracting prospective foreign

applicants to choose the school, relying on both the institutional recruitment team and outside

agencies. Drexel does most of its overseas recruitment through engaging alumni. People who

have graduated from Drexel and gone back to their home country will host gatherings where

prospective students and their families can go and learn more about Drexel in the country. Drexel

also partners with key high schools in East Asia, India and the UK to make its name known to

international applicants, and uses private agencies.

Dr. Altamirano at Penn acknowledges the social benefits of international education and

says the student body can truly benefit from their diversified group through developing an

appreciation for and an understanding of diverse cultures, as well as a sensitivity toward the

people within those cultures. Ms. Cordisco also stressed the importance of different opinions and

perspectives and the possible cognitive and affective gains for students on both sides as a result.

However, the two universities differ in that the University of Pennsylvania has a global
reputation to uphold while Drexels mission is more local-based. Penn is an Ivy and must

qualify the level excellence that is attached to its name. Therefore, it needs to expand beyond the

shores of the United States, says Dr. Altamirano. Drexel, on the other hand, has a commitment

to serving the community and Drexel administrators believe that a large presence of diverse

cultures can also benefit the area in a variety of ways.

Responsiveness

The Responsible Principle of the NAFSA Statement stipulates that institutions ought to

provide international students with the appropriate level of support based on age, experience,

language ability, and placement. The crucialness of such support is evident given the variety of

challenges and barriers with which international students are faced. Students coming to the U.S.

may encounter difficulties beginning as early as obtaining permission to pursue education.

Immigration regulations and interviews have become burdensome enough to discourage students

from applying to U.S. institutions (Altbach, 2004). A more salient component of the challenges

for international students, however, revolves around the social and community factors related to

adjustment as well as the use of support services, and both quantitative and qualitative research

that reflects such difficulties abounds.

Researchers have linked the overall satisfaction of international students with social and

academic experiences to positive interactions with the host community, which includes

non-international students, faculty, staff and people from local communities (Altbach, Kelly, &

Lulat, 1985). One such study, which paired host national students with international students in

an eight-month program, resulted in higher retention rates and grades compared with students

who were not involved in the program (Westwood & Barker, 1990). Perrucci and Hu (1995)
interviewed 428 graduate students and found that among these graduate international students,

those who were most satisfied with their academic appointments were the ones who had contact

with domestic students and low perceptions of discrimination. The reverse correlation also seems

to be true. Researchers have found that if there is no or limited contact with the host community,

feelings of cross-cultural isolation, depression, and fear can be experienced by international

students (Schram & Lauver, 1988).

However, the level of adjustment international students are able to achieve is not solely

determined by their own willingness and efforts to do so. A qualitative study by Lee and Rice

(2007) that interviewed 24 students from 15 countries found that some of the more acute

challenges faced by international students come from inadequacies in their host country. This

study utilized neo-racism as a conceptual framework to explain international students

experiences. There were several particular difficulties international students faced: from being

ignored, to verbal insults and confrontation. In contrast, students from Western countries faced

fewer of these hardships. International students are sometimes deterred by such discriminatory

treatments and become discouraged about engaging with the host community. They might stick

to their own ethnic enclaves, if those groups exist on campus or in the nearby community.

According to research, another set of challenges international students have points to

their discomfort with seeking professional help on campus, such as psychological and counseling

services, tutoring sessions, and academic workshops. In their quantitative study, Heggins and

Jackson (2003) found that informal social networks are very important to Asian students in the

U.S. who are uncomfortable using university support services when problems arise. They

observe that studies in addition to their own show that minority international students report
being treated like uninvited guests and suggest that these students lack trust in the professional

avenues of help open to them. Kher et al. (2003) describe how many support services at their

U.S. institution, including admission, registration, residence life, and dining do not well

accommodate international students despite the greater needs such students have as compared to

native students. The authors discuss the critical necessity of institutions to identify ways of

meeting the special needs of international students on campus, pointing out that this is more

difficult for small institutions, such as the one their study considers.

Interview Results regarding Responsiveness

Given that the Kher et al. article was published over a decade ago, accommodating the

needs of international students in terms of admission, registration, residence life, and dining has

significantly improved. Both Drexel and Penn maintain good, constant communication with its

international student group in order to identify their specific needs by utilizing surveys and

running focus groups. Dr. Altamirano, for example, coordinates Penns International Student

Advisory Board (ISAB) and ISTAR (International Student Table for Advocacy and Relations),

who have weekly meetings with the ISSS leadership to provide them with the opinions of the

students, as well as advice and guidance to help make the university a more warm, welcoming

and respectful environment for all international students. At Drexel, surveys are sent out to

international students regularly to take a pulse at how they are doing academically and socially

and international students also get invited to open staff meetings even when there are not salient

problems going on. When asked about the increase in the level of satisfaction among Drexels

international students with their university experience, Ms. Cordisco attributes that to the
schools effort to listen to its students and says We do a lot of proactive outreach and thats

what really has changed things.

Becoming aware of the problems international students have is only the first step towards

being ethically responsive as an institution. While survey results exhibit the aspects of life

international students find challenging, the action plans that the school decides to pursue

following the needs assessment are what truly has an impact on students university experience.

International students feel listened to only if their feedbacks can lead to actual changes on

campus. When responsiveness is defined in that way, Penn and Drexel are complying with this

ethical principle quite remarkably.

Based on the survey results they received, Dr. Altamirano and the Penn ISSS leadership

found that integration with the domestic community is the biggest socialization challenge for

international students, with 38 percent of them stating that the U.S.-born students never reach out

to them to share their experiences and 37 percent saying they do not have opportunities to shape

who the Penn community is defined. In order to address this issue of integration, the ISSS Office

has devised the Penngagement International Experience (PIE) Series tailored for international

students so that they can interact and develop a relationship with fellow students, staff, and

administrators and experience a sense of belonging and community. Some topics covered by the

PIE Series include: Oops! Avoiding Social Mistakes in the U.S., Navigating Interpersonal

Relationships in the U.S., and Spirituality and Religions. Dr. Altamirano also conceptualized and

spearheads Penns Intercultural Leadership Program (ILP), a yearly training program for both

domestic and international students to come together, take on issues they are passionate about,

and learn more about communities different than their own. The ILP not only provides
intercultural leadership training to the participants, but more importantly creates a ripple effect

by fostering this intercultural community of leaders who go out sharing their newly-gained

knowledge and skills and make a lasting impact at Penn and beyond. Drexel has also initiated

proactive outreach and developed programing specifically based on the feedbacks students have.

For example, in response to students perception that there was not a safe space for them to talk

about what they curious about the American culture and American students, Cultural Connection

Hour was devised as a weekly discussion platform to address that particular need.

In terms of neo-racism and discrimination, both administrators observed a decrease in the

number and severity of related cases and an increase in the willingness and openness among

international students to talk about such topics. They suggest that the most common form of

neo-racism and discrimination is microaggressions, which are hard to define and detect because

they can be subtle and usually happen during personal interactions among students. Contrary to

what the research suggests, both administrators did not conclude any patterns as to which

cultural groups are subject to discrimination more often than others.

The part of Kantian ethics that requires people to treat everyone as an ends and never as a

means is evident in what both administrators perceive as important in responding to the needs

and requests of international students. When asked about why so many resources and

departments are mobilized to improving the quality of life of international students, both

administrators refer to the importance of the good will and doing the right thing. Ms. Cordisco

says working with international students requires you to do things that you dont otherwise have

to do if it werent for their international backgrounds, and you just need to do the right thing
because you are kind of their extended family in this country. Similarly, Dr. Altamirano

attributed Penns inclusivity to the good will in the heart of the people here in this university.

Competence

The Competence recommendation states that international educators should be

committed to the careful planning, development and implementation of appropriate to ensure the

safety, security, and success of students. Besides handling the social adjustment of living in the

United States, Selvadurai (1998) found that classroom styles and relationships with professors

can be different for students coming from outside the United States and that they need to make

an active and conscious effort to adjust to the U.S. educational system.

Aside from their own adjustments into the U.S. academic culture, how well international

students cope with academic and interpersonal pressure is considerably affected by the facultys

perceptions of them. International students that have closer relationships with their advisor do

better at communicating and do better academically (Braine, 2002). In addition, Mallinckrodt

and Leong (1992) found that quality relationships between international students and faculty

protected the students against depression. Negative interactions with professors can also affect

international students' adaptation process. Studies have shown that students that align themselves

more with the host culture have an easier time adapting (Abe et al., 1998; Laroche et al., 1997).

Therefore, students that have negative interactions and choose to withdraw from class or

decrease their communication with the professor are at risk for having a more difficult time

adapting to the U.S.. This is congruent with what earlier research has shown: international

students thrive when are well received by the host community. Therefore, faculty perceptions of

international students as positive or negative in the classroom could potentially impact the
students' performance and academic achievement. Becoming more aware of other cultures in

regards to international students in their classroom is vital for faculty because of this major role

they play in these students' lives.

Because students' perceptions of themselves are affected by how they think faculty

perceive them, the Competence Clause in the NAFSA Statement highlights one specific type of

competence intercultural competence. Since the 1980s, intercultural competence has been

identified as an important feature in the development of college students. According to Bennett

(1998), intercultural understanding is a type of communication needed in a pluralistic society,

where there is an expectation of tolerance and respect for diversity. Monocultural

communication comprises common language, behavior, and values similarities that allow

humans to predict and understand each others behavior. Whenever this is not so, the difference

in cultures causes friction and misunderstandings; hence, social differences have historically

been discouraged (Bennett, 1998). Therefore, people need to recognize cultural differences

otherwise the assumption becomes that all cultures behave the same. In the case of international

education, a lack of intercultural competence, in other words, judging international students

through a professor's own cultural norms, behaviors, and values can lead to misunderstandings

and insulting remarks and behaviors. To raise awareness of their own ethnocentric behavior,

faculty need to recognize cultural differences in their students and learn more about the students'

cultures in their classrooms.

Interview Results regarding Competence

Given the considerable percentage of international students in the classrooms of Penn

(12%) and Drexel (18.2%), their faculty are presented with the challenge to interact with students
whose English language skills, learning approaches, attitudes towards authority and preferred

way of socialization, are vastly different from those of domestic students and those of their own.

As research shows that these differences can cause lack of communication or miscommunication

between the professors and the students, which can lead to even greater barriers such as distrust

and bias, ending up affecting the students academic performance and life satisfaction in a

negative way. Being aware of such undesirable consequences, the Drexel ISSS office runs a

series of workshops that help address this specific issue and provides information and training

sessions upon the requests of its faculty. They recently ran a Chinese name pronunciation

workshop which is considered a win-win initiative where the faculty felt they were able to

connect with their Chinese students more by saying their names correctly and the students felt

more respected and were pleased to see their professors go out of their way to make them feel

valued. The office plans on continuing this series and making it a recurring program that offers

Drexel faculty and staff effective training on improving their intercultural competence. The Penn

ISSS leadership also engages in cordial conversations with different departments and offices on

campus and persuade them to be more active in raising multicultural awareness and improving

their intercultural competence.

An ethical dilemma is presented when international educators need to collaborate with

the rest of the apparatus. When ISSS administrators make recommendations to other offices and

departments, they are implying what the faculty and staff are currently doing is either incorrect

or insufficient. If ignoring the unique needs of international students is wrong is considered as

a Categorical Imperative, it will be wrong for the offices and departments to refuse to participate

in intercultural competence training. However, in reality, when asked to do so, some faculty and
staff do not want the extra work involved and dismiss the recommendations as a result, without

realizing the ethical implications of their actions.

Given the decentralized nature of Penn, Dr. Altamiranos Office are only able to start

persuasion-based conversations with other departments and offices and not able to hold anyone

to certain ethical standards. It is diplomatically challenging to step on peoples toes by saying

how they should be doing their job when the offices do not work close together. In contrast,

Drexels approach provides better insights into how best to have such ethically necessary but

politically difficult dialogues. At Drexel, when conversations between offices, especially when

they are of a tension-causing nature, use system and data as the cornerstone of mutual

understanding. For example, when the Drexel financial aid office issued an unclear message

about Social Security Number to international students without taking into account their limited

knowledge of the relevant laws and policies, over 500 students met with their ISSS advisors in

order to understand the message. The ISSS office generated a report and helped the financial aid

office improve the message, lowering the number of confused students to 50 in the following

message cycle. By showing measurable consequences of not complying with the Competence

principle, the ISSS office associates ignoring the unique needs of international students with

wrongness and helps the faculty and staff to recognize the faultiness in their dealings with

international students.

Recommendations

While some of the interview results are not consistent with the existing literature, it is

important to note that both Penn and Drexel are private universities with over 24,000 students

and cannot represent all U.S. higher education institutions as a whole. However, valuable lessons
can still be gleaned from how these two universities approach international-students-related

ethical issues regarding Access, Responsiveness, and Competence.

Access: While international students are not eligible for federal loans, there are a vast

array of different financial sources, institutional or noninstitutional, for them to utilize. It is the

schools duty to inform the students of the such information and protect them from student loan

fraud.

Responsiveness: U.S. institutions should check in with international students regularly to

identify their unique needs and devise programming and services based on their feedbacks.

Students have more trust in the institution and are more satisfied with their quality of life when

they feel listened to by the host community. The integration between the domestic group and the

international group is critical for the success of both and harmonious relationships between the

two should be fostered and encouraged.

Competence: Faculty perceptions of international students as positive or negative in the

classroom could potentially impact the students performance and academic achievement.

Faculty need to recognize cultural differences in their students and learn more about the students

cultures in their classrooms, which will make the students feel respected and motivate to perform

better academically.
 Reference:

Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of peer program on international

student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 539-547.

Altbach, P. G., Kelly, D. H. & Lulat, Y-M. (1985). Research on Foreign Students and

International Study: An Over View and Bibliography. New York: Praeger Special Studies.

Altbach, P. (2004). Higher education crosses borders. Change, 36(2), 1825.

Altbach, P. (1998). Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University, and

Development. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural

sensitivity. In R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-

71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, M. (1998). Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. Yarmouth, ME:

Intercultural Press.

Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate student. Journal

of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 59-68.

Habu, T. (2000). The irony of globalization: The experience of Japanese women in

British higher education. Higher Education, 39(1), 4366.

Heggins III, W. J. & Jackson, J.F.L. (2003). Understanding the collegiate experience

for Asian international students at a Midwestern research university. College Student

Journal, 37(3), 379.

Heyneman, S. P. (2003). International education: A retrospective. Peabody Journal of

Education, 78(1), 33-53.

Heyward, M. (2002). From international to intercultural: Redefining the international

school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education,

1(1), 9-32.

Hira, A. (2003). The brave new world of international education. World Economy, 26(6),

911-931.

Hurtado, S. Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., & Landreman, L. (2002). Students precollege

preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher

Education, 43(2), 163-186.

Institute of International Education. (2006). Open Doors 2006: Report on international

educational exchange. Retrieved from: http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org

Institute of International Education. (2016). Open Doors 2016: Report on international

educational exchange. Retrieved from: http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org

James, K. (2005). International education: the concept, and its relationship to intercultural

education. Journal of Research in International Education, 4 (3), 31332.

Jordan, M. (2015). International Students Stream Into U.S. Colleges. The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/international-students-stream-into-u-s-colleges-1427248801

Kher, N., Juneau, G. & Molstad, S. (2003). From the southern hemisphere to the

rural south: A Mauritian students version of coming to America. College Student

Journal, 37(4), 564569.

Laroche, M., Kim, C, Hui, M., & Tomiuk, M. A. (1997). Test of a nonlinear relationship

between linguistic acculturation and ethnic identification. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 29, 418-434.

Lee, J. J. & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of

Discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381409.

Lewin, T. (2012). Taking More Seats on Campus, Foreigners Also Pay the Freight. The New

York Times. Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/education/international-students-pay-top-dollar-at-us-colleg

es.html

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social

support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71-78.

NAFSA. (2009). Statement of Ethical Principles. Washington D.C.: NAFSA.

Perucci, R. & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences

among international graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491508.

Rubie-Davies, C, Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students:

Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,

429-444.

Selvadurai, R. (1998). Problems faced by international students in American colleges and

universities. Community Review, 16, 153-158.

Schram, J. & Lauver, P. (1988). Alienation in international students. Journal of College Student

Development, 29, 146150.

Siaya, L., Porcelli, M., & Green, M. (2002). One year later: Attitudes about international

education since September 11. Public Opinion Poll. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education.
UNESCO (1974). Recommendations Concerning Education for International Understanding,

Cooperation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (1995). Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace,

Human Rights and Democracy. Paris: UNESCO.

Westwood, M. J., & Barker, M. (1990). Academic achievement and social adaptation among

international students: A comparison groups study of the peer-pairing program. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 251-263.

Williams, J. J. (2001). Franchising the university. In H. A. Giroux & K. Myrsiades (Eds.),

Beyond the corporate university: Culture and pedagogy in the new millennium (pp. 15-28).

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.