Content uploaded by Tina M. Hickey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tina M. Hickey on Jun 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
To Cite this paper:
O' Reilly, A., Hickey, T.M. and Ryan, D. (2015) 'The Experiences of American International
Students in a Large Irish University'. Journal of International Students, 5 (1):87-98.
The Experiences of American International Students in a
Large Irish University
O' Reilly, A., Hickey, T.M. and Ryan, D.
Abstract
Growing numbers of American students are travelling overseas to study abroad and enroll in full
degree programs. Despite this trend, relatively little is known about the experiences of United
States (U.S.) students abroad. The aim of this research was to examine the experiences of
American international students in Ireland. Findings suggest that while U.S. students experience
some adaptation problems, overall, they adapt well to studying in Ireland. Subtle differences in
long-term and short-term international students’ levels of social support and academic
satisfaction were also detected. This research has important practical implications for
facilitating the adaption of U.S. students abroad. At a time when many governments and
academic institutions are devising strategies to attract international students, this research is
timely and necessary.
Keywords: international students; psychological wellbeing; sociocultural adaptation; cross
cultural adjustment
The field of international education is dynamic and expanding rapidly. The U.S. is one of the
leading host destinations for students wishing to enhance their education through an international
perspective, with around 19% of all international students studying in American higher education
institutions (HEIs). However, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of U.S.
college students travelling overseas to pursue study abroad academic degree programs. Recent
reports have shown that 273,996 American students participated in study abroad programs in
2009/2010 and approximately 43,000 students from the U.S. pursued full degrees at the
postsecondary level worldwide in 2011 (Institute of International Education, 2012; Open Doors,
2012). Of this group, approximately 4,400 students studied in Ireland during the 2011/2012
academic year (Education Ireland, 2012). Study abroad programs have become a key component
of American HEIs’ commitments to internationalization, and there is a belief among educators
that such exchanges have many benefits for students, including enhanced adaptability, increased
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
2
openness to cultural diversity and, in some cases, improved proficiency in a foreign language
(Clarke, Flaherty, Wright, & McMillen, 2009; Dolby, 2007; Hunley, 2010).
Despite the drive among global educators to attract larger numbers of American international
students to their institutions, research has shown that some U.S. students experience difficulties
abroad (O’Reilly, Ryan, & Hickey, 2010; Citron, 1996; Dolby, 2007; Pitts, 2009). Adjusting to a
new academic environment has been shown to be particularly stressful for international students
(Coates & Dickinson, 2012; Chung, Kelliher, & Smith, 2006). Pitts (2009) found that the
academic expectations of American students on study abroad programs in Europe were
frequently unrealistic, with many students feeling shocked when they discovered that their
academic responsibilities abroad were equivalent to those in their home country. Other studies
have shown that U.S. students travelling to a country where English is not the first language
sometimes face language difficulties which negatively impacts on their overall adjustment
(Savicki, Adams, Wilde, & Binder, 2008). Language difficulties may also be experienced in
Anglophone contexts. For example, American study abroad students who travelled to a country
where the local language was English reported having difficulty understanding local accents and
idiomatic expressions (O’Reilly et al., 2010).
As a consequence of experiencing linguistic demands, Citron (1996) found that American
international students tend to retreat into their conational networks with other American students,
leading to less cultural engagement. Cultural engagement has been extolled as a major benefit of
studying abroad. Sociocultural adaptation, defined by Ward and colleagues (Searle & Ward,
1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1992) as an individual’s ability to “fit in” or execute effective
interactions in a host environment, is sometimes problematic for American international students
(Kenyon, Frohard-Dourlent, & Roth, 2012; Savicki, 2010; Savicki et al., 2008). In one study,
Kenyon et al. (2012) found that American students studying in Canada encountered difficulties
familiarizing themselves with host country bureaucracy and expressed frustration at the
unexpected nature of these difficulties. The sociocultural adaptation of American students may
also be affected by prevailing attitudes toward Americans in the countries in which they sojourn.
A number of studies have demonstrated that anti-American attitudes and stereotypes about
Americans negatively affect U.S. international students’ adjustment (Dolby, 2007; Kenyon et al.,
2012). For example, Dolby (2007) recounted that participants in her study had some unpleasant
interactions about American politics with host nationals due to negative perceptions about their
home country. As a result, students reported consciously trying not to appear as a “typical
American.”
Social networks play an important role in international students’ adjustment. Research indicates
that forming friendships with host nationals is important because students who do so ultimately
adjust to college life abroad more effectively (Hayes & Lin, 1994; Trice, 2004; Zheng & Berry,
1991). However, research with American international students has shown that many students
find it difficult to form friendships with local students (Kenyon et al., 2012; Pitts, 2009).
Pederson, Neighbors, Larimer and Lee (2011) argue that such difficulties ultimately hinder their
cultural experience and are associated with higher levels of homesickness. However, other
researchers have emphasized the importance of maintaining such conational ties since these
networks appear to provide comfort and stability for students (Afshar-Mohajer & Sung, 2002;
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
3
Montgomery & McDowell, 2009; Pitts, 2009). Pitts (2009) found that U.S. study abroad students
used their conational networks as a resource to help them make the cognitive, behavioural and
affective adjustments necessary to succeed abroad.
A further significant stressor for international students is financing their sojourn. Despite
assumptions that many international students who go abroad are wealthy, Pitts (2009) found that
managing finances was of major concern to study abroad students. Financial stressors can
distract international students from their academic studies, adversely affect their sense of
stability, and threaten the status that students have become accustomed to in their home country
(Akande, 1994; Clark Oropeza, Fitzgibbon, & Baron, 1991; Lacina, 2002; Telbis, Helgeson, &
Kingsbury, 2014; Walker, 1999). It is important for educators to pay attention to students’
difficulties relating to finance, social support, perceived discrimination, sociocultural adaptation,
language and academic adjustment, as such difficulties can have potentially detrimental effects
on international students’ psychological and physical health (Hayes & Lin, 1994; Trice; 2004;
Zheng & Berry, 1991). Hunley (2010) has shown that psychological distress is a central feature
of students’ cross-cultural adaptation, specifically for American international students.
The Current Study
The theoretical framework for this study is the model of cross-cultural adaptation proposed by
Ward and colleagues (Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; Ward &
Kennedy 1992; Ward & Kennedy, 1999; Ward & Searle, 1991). This model distinguishes
between two domains of cross-cultural adaptation: (a) psychological adaptation (i.e.,
psychological wellbeing or satisfaction in a new cultural environment) and (b) sociocultural
adjustment. Ward and Kennedy (1993) propose that psychological adaptation can best be
understood in terms of a stress and coping framework and that sociocultural adaptation is best
explained within a social skills or culture learning paradigm. This framework has much strength;
for example, rather than emphasizing the negative aspects of crosscultural adaptation such as
culture shock, it describes both social and affective components of adaptation, and views
maladjustment as one outcome of the transition experience (James, Hunsley, Navara, & Alles,
2004; Oberg, 1960). Ward and Searle’s (1991) theory of cross-cultural adaptation is one of the
most comprehensive models in this area and was thus chosen as a framework for this research.
This study explores the adaptation of both studying abroad for one semester or one academic
year, and long-term degree seeking study abroad American international students. It is important
to distinguish between these two groups as researchers have highlighted the need to take the
characteristics of a sojourning group into account when investigating their experiences (O’Reilly
et al., 2010; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). In terms of differences between the two groups, Lewis and
Niesenbaum (2005) propose that study abroad programs provide advantages that longer sojourns
do not, including affordability, academic flexibility, and a time-frame and program that may
seem less risky to students who are apprehensive about spending a longer period of time abroad.
However, other research has shown that studying abroad brings with it particular stressors related
to academic adjustment (Pitts, 2009). Compounding these problems, Pitts (2009) has proposed
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
4
that study abroad programs do not afford students as many opportunities for intercultural growth,
although the impact of this on American students’ experiences is unclear. Also uncertain is the
role that social support plays in the adaptation of study abroad versus long-term American
international students. For example, O’Reilly (2011) has highlighted how study abroad students
are generally more likely to be part of a structured program and invited to attend events
organized by the host institution. As a result of this, they may find it easier to make friends with
conational and other international students; something which has been shown to be highly
effective for study abroad students in easing their adaption, but not in gaining the maximum
cultural benefit from the exchange.
The aims of this study are to examine the cross-cultural adaptation of American international
students in Ireland using Ward and Searle’s framework, specifically by (a) exploring the
experiences of study abroad and long-term American international students, and (b) comparing
their experiences to those of a sample of host Irish students. The data used in this study were
gathered as part of a larger research project exploring the psychological and sociocultural
adaptation of a diverse group of international students in Ireland, the findings of which are
detailed by O’Reilly et al. (2010) and O’Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2013).
Method
Data Collection
Full ethical approval for this study was granted by the Human Research Ethics Board at the
institution where this research was carried out. In accordance with data protection guidelines, an
e-mail was initially sent by the institution’s international office on behalf of the researchers to a
list of students who met the definition of an international student (i.e., not an Irish citizen,
resident or of Irish nationality). An e-mail was also sent to all Irish students by the relevant
administration office. This email contained an invitation to take part in the study with a link to a
secure online website, and a reminder e-mail was sent to students after one week. Participation in
this study was voluntary. To increase the response rate, the survey was administered midway
through the first semester of the 2009/2010 academic year at a time when students were not
taking exams. The estimated response rates in this study were 18.76% for international students
and 4.95% for host students.
Participants
For the purposes of this study, data from international students who identified themselves
American (n = 150) were extracted from a larger data set (29.58% of the total sample). A random
sample of 149 host students (constituting 17% of the total sample of Irish students) was also
extracted. Of the 150 American participants, 99 were study abroad students and 51 were long-
term international students (see Table 1).
As this table shows, the majority of study abroad (71.7%) and long-term (68.6%) students were
female. Study abroad students were most likely to be undergraduate students (71.7%) and
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
5
studying Arts & Celtic Studies (51.5%). On the other hand, American students enrolled in long-
term programs were most likely to be postgraduate students (82.4%), and the majority of long-
term international students were studying Arts & Celtic Studies (29.4%) or Life Sciences
(29.4%). The majority of host students were also female (63.1%) undergraduate students (79.2%)
studying Arts & Celtic Studies (29.5%).
Measures
First, all participants completed a socio-demographic questionnaire designed by the authors
which included questions on gender, faculty, time of arrival, degree level and academic
satisfaction. Second, all participants completed the Measure of Perceived Social Support
(MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988) which assesses perceptions of social support from friends, family
and a significant other. Responses to 12 items are scored on a seven-point scale and higher
scores indicate higher levels of perceived social support. Next, participants completed the
College Stress Inventory (CSI; Solberg et al., 1991) which comprises 25 stress items measuring
academic, financial and social stress. Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of stress.
Finally, all participants completed the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10; Kessler et al.,
2002). The K10 contains ten items which asks respondents to rate how often they have
experienced various forms of distress in the previous 30 days. Higher scores on this measure
indicate higher levels of psychological distress.
International students also completed a measure of English language proficiency designed by the
author. In addition, they completed the Index of Sojourner Social Support (ISSS; Ong & Ward,
2005). The ISSS is an 18-item measure which contains two subscales capturing socioemotional
and instrumental support, and higher scores indicate better levels of social support. Two
measures of social support were used to capture the specific levels of long-term international
students’ social support (Ong & Ward, 2005) and to allow for comparisons between the host
sample and international student groups. The Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS; Ward &
Kennedy, 1999) was also administered to international students. The SCAS has 29 items
measuring the amount of difficulty experienced in a number of everyday activities, and higher
scores indicate higher levels of sociocultural difficulties. Finally, international students
completed the General Ethnic Discrimination Scale (GED; Landrine et al., 2006). Each of the 18
items on this scale assesses the frequency of discrimination in a different arena and asks
participants to rate the stress level of their experiences. These measures were chosen as they have
been shown to be reliable and valid in similar studies with college students, including
international students. The reliability of the scales in this study was very good as Cronbach’s
alpha for the study instruments ranged between .74 and .97.
Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were first carried out to provide an insight into international students’
experiences in Ireland. A series of one-way between-groups multivariate analyses (MANOVAs),
between-groups analysis of variance tests (ANOVAs) and post-hoc analyses were then used to
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
6
explore differences between long-term international students, study abroad students and host
students.
Results
Inspection of mean and standard deviation scores suggested that American international students
were not experiencing significant adaptation difficulties. Subtle differences between international
student groups were detected when these scores were examined, while differences between
international students and their host (Irish) peers were also observed (see Table 2).
Results from the first MANOVA examining differences between long-term (n = 40) and study
abroad (n = 76) international students on the measures of social support, sociocultural adaptation,
college stress, academic satisfaction, perceived discrimination (GED frequency) and
psychological wellbeing revealed there was a statistically significant difference between groups,
F (7, 108) = 2. 392; p = .026; Pillai’s Trace = .13, partial eta squared = .13. Long-term American
international students had significantly higher levels of academic satisfaction than study abroad
students (see Table 3). The second MANOVA examining differences between long-term
international students (n = 43) and study abroad students (n = 84) on the subscales of the
MSPSS, ISSS and CSI showed a statistically significant difference between groups, F (8, 118) =
2.208; p = .031; Pillai’s Trace = .13, partial eta squared = .13.
Here, long-term international students reported significantly higher levels of instrumental social
support than students on study abroad programs (see Table 3). A third MANOVA comparing the
experiences of long-term American international students (n = 45), study abroad students (n =
87) and host students (n = 108) on measures of social support (MSPSS), college stress, academic
satisfaction and psychological distress revealed a significant difference between the three groups,
F (8, 470) = 2.917; p = .003; Pillai’s Trace = .1, partial eta squared = .05. Significant differences
were observed on the measures of perceived social support, college stress and psychological
distress (see Table 4). Although no significant differences in levels of psychological distress
were observed, F (2, 277) = 2.933; p = .055, there were significant differences on the measures
of perceived social support, F (2, 292) = 3.981; p =.02, power = .026 and college stress, F (2,
294) = 3.924; p = .038, power = .021. Posthoc analyses revealed that study abroad students had
significantly higher levels of perceived social support (d = .35) than Irish students, while
American students in long-term programs had significantly lower levels of college stress
compared to Irish students (d = -4.42).
A final MANOVA examining differences between the American student groups and Irish
students on the MSPSS and CSI subscales revealed a significant difference between the groups,
F (12, 528) = 5.916; p = .000; Pillai’s Trace = .24, partial eta squared = .12. Significant
differences were observed on the measures of academic stress, and perceived friends and family
social support (see Table 4). There were significant differences on the measures of perceived
support from friends, F (2, 290) = 5.795; p = .003, power = .038 and family, F (2, 291) = 5.095;
p = .007, power = .034. Study abroad students reported higher levels of perceived support from
family (d = .47) and friends (d = .45) than Irish students. Results also showed a significant
difference in levels of academic stress between groups, F (2, 285) = 13.076; p = .000, power =
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
7
.84. Irish students reported significantly higher levels of academic stress than American
international students in long-term (d = 4.52) and study abroad (d = 3.33) programs.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of long-term and study abroad American
international students in Ireland. One clear finding to emerge is that American international
students reported mainly positive experiences. For example, long-term international students
reported lower levels of overall college stress compared to host students. This is an important
finding and one which should be highlighted as research on international students tends to
emphasize students’ adaptation problems. Some studies have shown that many international
students adapt well to life in a new country (O’Reilly et al., 2010; Berno & Ward, 2004; Myles
& Cheng, 2003; Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002; Spencer-Oatey & Xiong, 2006). Often, the positive
aspects of cross-cultural adaptation are overlooked and an emphasis is placed on the negative
aspects of international students’ experiences abroad.
In understanding the positive outcomes for American students, it should be noted that study
abroad students reported having higher levels of social support compared to Irish students. A
relevant factor is that most of the American study abroad students in the study institution are
housed with other international students in on-campus accommodation or else tend to live with
other international students from their home university in designated off-campus
accommodation. This may be helpful in providing students with additional sources of social
support and these conational networks are likely to have provided students with comfort and
stability (Afshar-Mohajer & Sung, 2002; Montgomery & McDowell, 2009). Typically, there are
also a number of structures put in place in home and host institutions to support study abroad
students. For example, at the institution where this research was carried out there is a dedicated
administrative unit to support North American students on study abroad programs. Such
resources are likely to impact on students’ levels of social support. Typically, friendships with
other international students and overseas ties act as a source of socioemotional support for
international students while friendships with host nationals are a source of instrumental social
support (Ong & Ward, 2005). The current study showed that American students in long-term
academic stays had significantly higher levels of instrumental social support compared to study
abroad students. That is, American long-term international students appear to have formed more
friendships with host students which they were able to use as a way of obtaining tangible
assistance and informational support. Thus, while living with other study abroad international
students may have benefitted students in facilitating their access to supportive friendships with
other international students, at the same time this may have reduced their impetus to engage with
host nationals. Ultimately, this is something which Pederson and colleagues (2011) have argued
hinders international students’ experiences abroad. However, while study abroad students may
have missed out somewhat on the benefits of interacting more with host students, the lower
levels of instrumental social support reported by study abroad students did not significantly
increase their levels of sociocultural or psychological difficulties.
This finding may have been impacted by length of time abroad, as the long-term international
students in this study were living in Ireland longer than their study abroad peers. Thus, they may
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
8
have had more time to develop relationships with domestic/host students. Studies examining the
relationship between length of residence abroad and international students’ adaptation have
provided conflicting results. Although some studies have found evidence to support the
hypothesis that length of residence and international students’ adaptation are related (Jou &
Fukada, 1996; Zhang, 2009), others have found no support for this association (Ye, 2006; Wei,
Heppner, Mallen, Ku, Kelly, & Wu, 2007). The critical importance of considering the issue of
international students’ academic adjustment has been highlighted here and elsewhere (Chung et
al., 2006; Pitts, 2009). It is therefore noteworthy that this study revealed American international
students had significantly lower levels of academic stress than host students. This finding does
not accord with the general literature which shows that international students tend to experience
academic adjustment difficulties which are attributable to several factors (Coates & Dickinson,
2012; Chung et al., 2006; Pitts, 2009). One possibility is that American international students are
more able academically than general samples of host students.
Relevant to this was the observation that there were differences in levels of academic satisfaction
within the American international student sample. While study abroad students are often viewed
as academic tourists with few academic stressors, findings from this study revealed American
long-term international students are actually more satisfied academically than their peers on
study abroad programs. This finding may be linked to the fact that study abroad students have to
adjust very quickly to a new institution’s methods of teaching and assessment since their grades
are frequently taken into account by their home institution. On the other hand, long-term
international students have the opportunity to acquaint themselves over a longer time period to
the host institution’s teaching and learning practices as well as to the expectations in the host
institution. Indeed, this finding accords with the suggestion put forward by Pitts (2009) that
American study abroad students often have unrealistic expectations about their academic
responsibilities abroad. Another factor that may have contributed to this finding is the different
composition of the American students in short and long-stay programs. The majority of students
sampled here in the former category were undergraduate students, while most of the American
students in long-stay programs were postgraduates. Previous research has indicated that there are
some differences between undergraduate and postgraduate students depending on what aspect of
adaptation is being studied (Yanhong Li & Kaye 1998; Rienties & Tempelaar 2013). Thus, it
may have been the case that differences in academic adjustment were to some extent linked with
stage of study and further research is needed on this issue.
Although American international students appeared to be reasonably well adjusted inspection of
their mean scores revealed they were experiencing moderate levels of sociocultural adaptation
difficulties. This finding supports the results of Kenyon et al.’s (2012) study which showed that
American students studying in culturally similar country to the U.S. encountered a range of
sociocultural challenges. Another issue of some concern is that American international students
reported moderate levels of distress. However, this finding must be interpreted against the
backdrop of the relatively high levels of psychological distress reported among the host sample
in the present study. The economic changes that occurred around the time of data collection are
likely to have impacted on Irish students’ wellbeing. In 2009, Ireland was in the midst of an
economic recession which was accompanied by a sharp decline in employment rates and
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
9
increase in emigration. For example, data published by the Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO)
revealed that in 2009, for the first time since 1995, more people left Ireland than moved there.
Finally, while results from this study revealed that American students reported relatively low
levels of discrimination in Ireland, a small number of American international students had
experienced some form of discrimination since arriving and found such experiences stressful. It
is likely that these American students were subject, like many American citizens abroad, to
shifting levels of anti-Americanism that are linked with politics and world events (Dolby, 2007;
Kenyon et al., 2012).
Although this study had many strengths, there are a number of limitations which must be
considered. In the first instance the majority of study abroad students in this study were
undergraduate students whereas most long-term international students were studying at
postgraduate level. Although this pattern also reflects the composition of international students in
Ireland (Educational Ireland, 2012), it is possible that the significant differences observed
between long-term and short-term international students were attributable to variations in stage
of study. One further limitation is that this study was conducted at one HEI in Ireland. As
institutional culture has been shown to have a strong impact on the learning culture of
international and host students, research with students from a selection of HEIs may produce
different findings (Campbell & Hourigan 2008). It also should be noted that effect sizes for some
of the statistical analyses indicate that the magnitude of the differences between mean scores are
small. Finally, participants were not asked about their reasons for studying abroad. It may have
been the case that there were differences between students who self-selected to study abroad and
those who were required to do so.
The results of this research have important implications for those involved with preparing
American students for travelling abroad to study, as well as service providers in the institutions
to which American students travel. Given that American international students were
experiencing moderate levels of sociocultural adaptation difficulties, service providers should
consider organizing workshops focusing on differences in cultural practices with groups of
American international students and host students planning to go on an exchange to the U.S. In
addition to focusing on sociocultural challenges, these workshops might focus on differences in
academic environments which would be helpful for study abroad students experiencing low
levels of academic satisfaction. Yeh and Inose (2003) propose that skill-training workshops and
cultural exchange groups foster a sense of community for international students. Such workshops
might also provide American study abroad students with an additional source of instrumental
social support through facilitating interaction between international and host students.
However, it is important to point out that O’Reilly (2011) found international students sometimes
do not perceive any benefits from participating in such programs and feel host students do not
engage sufficiently with these programs. This points to a need to adapt peer mentoring programs
to make them more attractive for host students and to try to facilitate students’ interactions in
more fun and creative ways. Predeparture attempts by service providers to raise American
international students’ awareness about some of the sociocultural issues relevant to their host
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
10
country such as differences in humor, accent and interaction styles among host national young
adults would also be helpful.
At the receiving end, assumptions regarding the academic commitment of American study
abroad students need to be reviewed. Specifically, any perception among teaching staff that
study abroad students from the U.S. are likely to be less than committed to their studies should
be addressed. Furthermore, teaching staff need to be informed about the types of international
students taking their courses and made aware of any issues that are relevant to their teaching and
assessment, such as addressing their concerns about expectations and standards. Given some
international students in this study reported experiences of discrimination, a presentation to staff
at the host institution on the normalization of anti-Americanism in recent years and the impact of
perceived discrimination on the psychological adaptation of international students might be
helpful. Similarly, outlining to American international students before their departure that, while
discrimination is not widespread, they may interact with individuals who have negative
perceptions about the U.S. and educating students about how to respond in such situations would
be helpful.
Conclusion
It is likely that over the next few years, increasing numbers of American students will opt to
spend some time abroad as an international student. Thus, it is important to have an
understanding of American international students’ adaptation experiences. This study shows that
while there are some subtle differences within the international student population, many
American students in both short and long-stay programs adjust well to student life in Ireland.
However, it also shows that some American students experience some challenges and that there
are a number of practical ways in which educators can address these challenges in order to
facilitate American students’ cross-cultural adaptation.
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
11
References
Afshar-Mohajer, R., & Sung, E. (2002). The stigma of inclusion: Racial paternalism/separatism
in higher education. Accessed November 29, 2009, from
http://www.nycivilrights.org/reports/pdfs/nycrc_campusreport.pdf.
Akande, (1994). The international students at the University of Ibadan. International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth, 5, 127–138.
Arthur, N. (2003). Counseling international students: Clients from around the world. New York:
Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Berno, T., & Ward, C. (2004). Cross-cultural and educational adaptation of Asian students in
New Zealand, Asia 2000 Foundation.
Campbell, M., & Hourigan, N. (2008). Institutional cultures and development education.
Development Education and Research, 7, 35–47.
Caruana, V., & Spurling, N. (2007). The internationalisation of UK higher education: A review
of selected material: Project report. Retrieved 13 Feb 2013 from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/tla/internationalisation/lit_review_interna
tionalisation_of_uk_he_v2.pdf
Central Statistics Office [CSO] (2009). Population and migration estimates: April 2009.
Retrieved 15 February 2010 from http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents
/population/current/popmig.pdf.
Chung, M., Kelliher, M., & Smith, W. (2006). Managing academic support for international
students: The appropriateness of a learning support unit in an Australian tertiary
institution. Australia: Monash University
Citron, J. L. (1996). Short-term study abroad: Integration, third culture formation, and re-entry.
Paper presented at the NAFSA Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Clark Oropeza, B. A., Fitzgibbon, M., & Baron, A. (1991). Managing mental health crises of
foreign college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 280–284.
Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B., Wright, N. D., & McMillen, R. M. (2009). Student intercultural
proficiency from study abroad programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(2), 173–
181.
Coates, N., & Dickinson. J. (2012). Meeting international postgraduate student needs: a
programme-based model for learning and teaching support. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 49(3), 295-308
Department of Education and Skills Ireland (2010). Investing in global relationships: Ireland’s
international education strategy 2010–15. Dublin: Government Printing Office.
Dolby, N. (2007). Reflections on nation: American undergraduates and education abroad.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 141–156.
Education Ireland (2012). International students in Irish higher education 2011/2012. Dublin,
Ireland: Enterprise Ireland.
Hayes, R.L., & Lin, H.R. (1994). Coming to America: Developing social support systems for
international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 22, 7–16.
Hunley, H. A. (2010). Students’ functioning while studying abroad: The impact of psychological
distress and loneliness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 386–392.
Institute for International Education (2008). Exploring host country capacity for increasing U.S.
study abroad. Retrieved 13 Feb 2013 from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
12
Publications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-Bookstore/Exploring-Host-Country-Capacity-
for-Increasing-US-Study-Abroad.
Institute for International Education (2012). U.S. students in overseas degree programs: Key
destinations and fields of study. Retrieved 10 Feb 2013 from
http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-Bookstore/
US-Students-In-Overseas-Degree-Programs.
James, S., Hunsley, J., Navara, G.S., & Alles, M. (2004). Marital, psychological, and
sociocultural aspects of sojourner adjustment: Expanding the field of enquiry.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(2), 111–126.
Jou, Y.H., & Fukuda, H. (1996). Influences of social supports and personality on adjustment of
Chinese students in Japan. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(20), 1795–1802.
Kagan, H., & Cohen, J. (1990). Cultural adjustment of international students. Psychological
Science, 1, 133–137.
Kenyon, K., Frohard-Dourlent, H., & Roth, W.D. (2012). Falling between the cracks:
Ambiguities of international student status in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 42(1), 1–24.
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.–L. …
Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and
trends in non–specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.
Lacina, J.G. (2002). Preparing international students for a successful social experience in higher
education. New Directions for Higher Education, 117, 21–28.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A., Corral, I., Fernandez, S., & Roesch, S. (2006). Conceptualizing
and measuring ethnic discrimination in health research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
29, 79–94.
Lewis, T. L., & Niesenbaum, R. A. (2005). The benefits of short-term study abroad [Point of
view]. The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review, 51(39), B20.
Matthews, K., & Satzewich, V. (2006). The invisible transnationals? Americans in Canada. In V.
Satzewich and L. Wong (Eds.), Transnational identifies and practices in Canada (pp.
164–178). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Montgomery, C. & McDowell, L. (2009) Social networks and the international student
experience: A community of practice? Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(4), 455–466.
Myles, J., & Cheng, L. (2003). The social and cultural life of non-native English speaking
international graduate students at a Canadian university. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 2, 247–263.
O’Reilly, A., Hickey, T.M. & Ryan, D. (under review). An Investigation of the Adaptation of
Long-term International Students in Ireland. Manuscript submitted for publication.
O’Reilly, A., Hickey, T.M. & Ryan, D. (2013). Higher education professionals’ perspectives on
international student experiences of life and learning in Ireland: A qualitative study. Irish
Educational Studies, 32(3), 355–375.
O’Reilly, A. (2011). The psychological and sociocultural adaptation of international students in
Ireland. Unpublished PhD diss., University College Dublin.
O’Reilly, A., Ryan, D. & Hickey, T.M. (2010). The psychological and sociocultural adaption of
short-term international students in Ireland. Journal of College Student Development, 51,
584–598.
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
13
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical
Anthropology, 7, 177–182.
Ong, A. S., & Ward, C. (2005). The construction and validation of a social support measure for
sojourners: The index of sojourners social support (ISSS) scale. Journal of Cross-cultural
Psychology, 36, 637–661.
Open Doors (2012). Fast facts 2012. Retrieved 14 February 2013 from
http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors.
Pedersen, E.R., Neighbors, C., Larimer, M.E., & Lee, C.M. (2011). Measuring sojourner
adjustment among American students studying abroad. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 35, 881–889.
Pitts, M. J. (2009). Identity and role of expectations, stress, and talk in short-term student
sojourner Adjustment: An application of the integrity theory of communication and cross
cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 450–462.
Poyrazli, S., & Lopez, M. D. (2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and
homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The
Journal of Psychology, 141(3), 263–280.
Rajapaksa, S., & Dundes, L. (2002). It’s a long way home: International student adjustment to
living in the United States. College Student Retention, 4, 15–28.
Rienties, B., & Tempelaar. D. T. (2013). The role of cultural differences of international students
on academic and social integration and academic performance in the Netherlands.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 188–201.
Savicki, V. (2010). Implications of early sociocultural adaptation for study abroad students.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XIX, 205–223.
Savicki, V., Adams, I., Wilde, A., & Binder, F. (2008). Intercultural development: Topics and
sequences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XV, 111–126.
Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment
during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(4),
499–464.
Simmons, C.M., Klopf, D.W., & Park, M-S. (1991). Loneliness among Korean and American
university students. Psychological Reports, 68(3), 754
Solberg, S. V., Valdez, J., Villarreal, P., & Falk, S. (1991). Validation of a perceived stress
measure for Hispanic students. Paper presented at the 99
th
annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Xiong, Z. (2006). Chinese students’ psychological and sociocultural
adjustments to Britain: An empirical study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1),
37–53.
Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with
American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 671–687.
Walker, P. (1999). Market research: A poor substitute for a scholarly investigation into
international education issues in Britain. Journal of International Education, 10(1), 6–13.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social difficulties
during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16,
175–194.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where's the "culture" in cross-cultural transition? Comparative
studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 221–249.
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
14
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 659–676.
Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on
psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 15, 209–225
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Hove, East
Sussex: Routledge.
Wei, M., Heppner, P.P., Mallen, M.J., Ku, T.-Y., Kelly, Y.-H.L., & Wu, T.-F. (2007).
Acculturative stress, perfectionism, years in the United States, and depression among
Chinese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 385–394.
Yanhong Li, R. & Kaye, M. (1998) Understanding Overseas Students’ Concerns and Problems.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 20(1), 41–50.
Yeh, C.J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support
satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, 16, 15–28.
Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to
life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 35, 39–162
Zhang, W. (2009). Academic adaptation of experiences of Chinese graduate students at J. F.
Oberlin University. Master’s Thesis: J.F. Oberlin University. Retrieved 26 May 2010
from http://www.uv.uio.no/hedda/assets/docs/Zhang-Wei.pdf.
Zheng, X., & Berry, J.W. (1991). Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojourners in Canada.
International Journal of Psychology, 26, 451–470.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale
of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
15
Table 1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of American and Host Student Samples (N = 299)
Characteristic
M (SD)
American
Long-term
American
Study abroad
Host (Irish)
Students
Age
25.46 (3.97) 20.85 (1.45) 24.11 (7.43)
Time post-arrival*
14.33(19.15) 3.62 (5.34) 28.32 (21.52)
N (%)
Sex
Female
35 (68.6) 71 (71.7) 94 (63.1)
Male
16 (31.4) 28 (28.3) 55 (36.9)
Degree Level
Undergraduate
9 (17.6) 93 (93.9) 118 (79.2)
Postgraduate
42 (82.4) 6 (6.1) 31 (20.8)
Faculty
Arts and Celtic Studies
15 (29.4) 51 (51.5) 44 (29.5)
Business & Law
10 (19.6) 26 (26.3) 26 (17.4)
Engineering, Maths & Physical Science
6 (11.8) 9 (9.1) 36 (24.2)
Human Sciences
5 (9.8) 4 (4.0) 10 (6.7)
Life Sciences
15 (29.4) 9 (9.1) 33 (22.2)
Total
51 (100) 99(100) 149 (100)
* Time post-arrival refers to the number of months that have passed since participants arrived in
Ireland (long-term and study abroad international students) or enrolled in the HEI (host students)
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
16
Table 2
Mean (Standard Deviations) for American and Host Student Participants
Measure
Range
American
Long-term
American
Study
Abroad
Host (Irish)
Students
n = 51
n = 99
n = 149
Demographic
Academic satisfaction
1-6 4.31 (0.97) 4.02 (0.66) 4.08 (1.05)
Social
Support
Social support (MSPSS)
1-7 5.62 (0.97) 5.86 (0.72) 5.51 (1.08)
Significant other support
1-7 5.52 (1.4) 5.66 (0.73) 5.48 (1.48)
Family support
1-7 5.66 (1.23) 6.03 (0.96) 5.56 (1.21)
Friends support
1-7 5.66 (1.19) 5.95 (0.73) 5.5 (1.11)
Social support (ISSS)
1-90 58.79 (16.51) 56.40 (13.75) -
Instrumental support
1-45 31.23 (8.92) 28.62 (7.95) -
Socioemotional support
1-45 27.89 (8.4) 27.78 (6.93) -
Cultural
Sociocultural adaptation
1-145 50.86 (12.7) 49.93 (13.34) -
Discrimination frequency
1-108 20.83 (4.39) 19.79 (4.97) -
Discrimination appraisal
1-108 21.86 (8.54) 19.1 (4.22) -
Psychological
Wellbeing
College stress
0-100 15.73 (10.6) 19.96(11.52) 20.14(13.51)
Academic stress
0-40 6.9 (4.96) 8.1 (5.49) 11.42 (7.24)
Financial stress
0-28 4.61 (4.94) 3.81 (3.8) 4.74 (5.36)
Social stress
0-32 3.82 (3.5) 4.71 (3.48) 4.08 (3.69)
Psychological distress
10-50 19.22 (5.61) 18.29 (5.83) 20.36 (6.95)
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
17
Table 3
MANOVA Exploring Differences between American Students on Long-Term and Study Abroad
Programs
American
Long-term
M (SD)
American
Study abroad
M (SD)
F
(df = 1, 114)
p
Academic satisfaction
4.45 (0.85) 4.01 (0.66) 9.364
.003*
Perceived social support
5.64 (0.86) 5.82 (0.74) 1.342 .249
Sojourner social support
58.87 (15.85) 56.64 (14.63) 0.575 .450
Perceived discrimination*
1
21.03 (4.41) 19.91 (5.08) 1.383 .242
Sociocultural adaptation
50.03 (12.22) 48.86 (14.14) 0.196 .659
College stress
14.75 (8.68) 15.96 (11.24) 0.354 .553
Psychological distress
19.05 (4.94) 18.47 (6.17) 0.261 .611
American
Long-term
M (SD)
American
Study abroad
M (SD)
F
(df = 1, 114)
p
Socioemotional support
28.16 (7.95) 27.83 (6.92) 0.58 .810
Instrumental support
31.72 (8.36) 28.34 (7.87) 5.014
.027*
Academic stress
7.00 (4.85) 7.58 (4.56) 0.445 .506
Financial stress
4.05 (3.84) 3.71 (3.7) 0.224 .637
Social stress
3.81 (3.69) 4.58 (3.37) 1.389 .241
Friends social support
5.73 (1.04) 5.95 (0.73) 1.87 .174
Family social support
5.72 (1.21) 6.06 (0.9) 3.315 .071
Significant other social support
5.57 (1.35) 5.67 (1.07) 0.194 .661
*
1
Frequency of perceived discrimination; appraisal of discrimination not included so as to avoid
violating assumption of multicollinearity
O' Reilly, Hickey and Ryan (2015)
18
Table 4
MANOVA Exploring Differences between Long-term and Study Abroad American International
Students and Host National Students
American
Study
Abroad
M (SD)
American
Long-term
M (SD)
Host
M (SD)
F
(df = 2, 237)
P
Academic satisfaction
4.03 (0.69)
4.4 (0.89)
1.02 (4.14)
2.532
.082
College stress
16.23 (10.93) 15.4 (8.69) 20.79 (14.17) 4.768
.009*
Psychological distress
18.36 (5.87) 19.22 (5.67) 20.69 (6.75) 3.459
.033*
Perceived social
support
5.83 (0.71) 5.6 (0.9) 5.5 (0.93) 3.194
.043*
American
Study
Abroad
M (SD)
American
Long-term
M (SD)
Host
M (SD)
F
(df = 2, 269)
P
Family support
6.07 (0.90) 5.68 (1.23) 5.56 (1.21) 5.887
.003*
Friends support
5.96 (0.73) 5.73 (1.07) 5.51 (1.07) 6.05
.003*
Significant other
support
5.67 (1.10) 5.53 (1.42) 5.5 (1.47) .469 .626
Social stress
4.71 (3.43) 3.75 (3.55) 3.95 (3.62) 1.673 .190
Academic stress
7.74 (4.52) 6.72 (4.77) 11.19 (7.1) 14.16
.000*
Financial stress
3.75 (3.73) 4.11 (4.31) 4.79 (5.48) 1.353 .260
