Students Starting University: Exploring Factors That Promote Success for First-Year International and Domestic Students

Abstract

There are many factors that influence the first-year university student experience, and these factors can vary depending on student characteristics. In this research, using survey data, we explore differences between domestic Canadian and international (non-Canadian) first year university students across four categories that have been identified in past research. These categories broadly influence student success: individual factors, psychological needs, social relationships and connections to campus, and learning preferences and behaviors. Two hundred and seventy-two students (domestic: N = 185, international: N = 86) responded to quantitative individual difference items. International students reported greater drive, higher self-esteem, and placed greater importance on strong social networks, social life, and faith. Further, as compared to domestic first-year students, international students reported higher campus engagement, greater preferences for textbooks and online tutorials, being alone with their thoughts, higher confidence with their major choice, and reported studying more. Importantly, international students were less likely to feel they had a safe place to live in comparison to domestic students (all p < 0.05). These data show that international students come to campus with differential needs, styles, and experiences, which can inform approaches taken by institutions in supporting their students’ success.

Introduction

Approximately 54% of Canadians have some sort of higher education qualification (Statistics Canada, 2017). The Canadian college and university system is comprised of over 440 institutions (Council of Ministers of Education [CMEC], 2021). These institutions are overwhelmingly public, ranging from very large institutions of over 70,000 to institutions under 1,000. Universities offer full undergraduate degree programs, and most offer some graduate programs. Colleges tend to be more vocational in focus, but many colleges also offer some range of undergraduate degree programs. Approximately half of students borrow money to pay for their education (Statistics Canada, 2020).

In the 2018/2019 academic year, there were over 2.1 million students enrolled in Canadian public universities and colleges. Of those students, 344,430 were international, an increase of 16.2% over the previous academic year, whereas the domestic student population decreased by 0.5% (Statistics Canada, 2020). International students are actively contributing to Canadian postsecondary success and have a profound impact on the Canadian economic system. Over the past decade, the international student population has more than tripled, representing over 55% of the total enrollment growth within Canadian Universities (Statistics Canada, 2020), bringing different cultural perspectives, worldly contribution and attitudes, and knowledge that contributes to the image and development of the university and all students who attend (Vertesi, 1999; Bowry, 2002; Ngobia, 2011). International students also broaden the knowledge and understanding of their home countries, cultures, and global issues that western society may not consider impactful due to proximity (Hayle, 2008; Parsons, 2010). Thus, it is important for university administration and faculty to understand factors related to success of both domestic and international students when it comes to transitioning into university, student success, and the challenges they face during their first year of their post-secondary education.

Theoretical Background

Transitioning into university can be both exciting and difficult (Goff, 2011). Data from more than fifty years of research has identified core elements to the successful transition of students to post-secondary education (Perry, 1970; Kohlberg, 1976; Gilligan, 1977, 1982; Belenky et al., 1986). Highlighting just one model for student success, it has been argued that there are three factors to consider when understanding student success: Inputs (demographic, past experiences, etc.), environment (experiences and supports available during university) and outcomes (how the students’ beliefs, knowledge, values, attitudes have evolved post-graduation) (Astin, 1994, 2007). In exploring reasons why students do not succeed, again exploring just one model, three specific reasons have been suggested to account for why students leave post-secondary education: Academic problems (e.g., academic skills); failure to socially and intellectually integrate into the campus culture; and low levels of commitment to educational goals (Tinto, 1993).

As understanding of student experience increases, additional factors have been identified as relevant for student success. For example, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle proves to be a challenge to students that impacts their academic abilities (Racette et al., 2008; Vella-Zarb and Elgar, 2009; Crombie et al., 2013; Mueller et al., 2018; Sogari et al., 2018). Although many students are in good health at the time of university enrollment, undesirable lifestyle habits such as overeating, lack of exercise, alcohol and drug use, and poor sleep habits, developed through childhood and adolescence, can hinder students during university years (Crombie et al., 2009, 2013; McLean-Meyinsse et al., 2013; McComb and Kirkpatrick, 2016; Schroeter et al., 2019). Likewise, despite providing students with information about dangers associated with the intake of drugs, alcohol, over-eating, and other health-related behaviors, research suggests that post-secondary students engage in habits that may be unhealthy and potentially hazardous (Guthrie et al., 2015).

Highlighting lifestyle factors that can contribute to student success, most students are not meeting the recommended guidelines of physical activity, are eating less than the recommended servings of fruit and vegetables per day (Guthrie et al., 2015) replacing produce with unhealthy options (Mueller et al., 2018), and are struggling with sleep deprivation and stress (Caldwell et al., 2011). Many students experience loneliness, a general sense of unease, fear of missing out (FOMO), and feelings of inadequacy and not belonging on campus (Barker et al., 2016, 2018). Indeed, there are many well-documented challenges when transitioning into university. Despite the importance of international students in our campus communities, most of this literature pertains to domestic (and typically US) students and does not consider how transitioning into post-secondary education as an international student may differ from the domestic student experience.

Exploring Factors Associated With Post-secondary Transition for International Students

The term “international student,” intended to refer to students who consider their home to be outside of the country in which they are schooling, is intentionally broad. Students from across the world study across the world. International students of course will experience the transition to post-secondary differently, and for many possible reasons. That said, there are some challenges that are shared among international students regardless of home and institution country. When considering the transition to post-secondary education, there are reasons to expect that international students may experience this transition differently than domestic students. For example, international students may be facing difficulties associated with moving to an entirely new country. Early research associated this “culture shock” to homesickness, loneliness, mental health decline, language challenges, adjustment to climate and food, financial concerns, and employability (Klineberg and Hull, 1979; Church, 1982; Berry et al., 1987; Chataway and Berry, 1989; Uehara and Hicks, 1989; Rohrlich, 1991). These experiences are important for the academic experience: in one study, international students who were on academic probation believed that these challenges were due to “culture shock” (Poyrazli and Isaiah, 2018).

In addition to international students experiencing the transition to post-secondary differently from domestic students, research has demonstrated that international students may also cope with, or at least perceive, the transition into post-secondary education differently than domestic students (Hanbazaza et al., 2017; Huang, 2017). Indeed, international students may handle the transition better than once was believed (Grayson, 2008, 2011). Although it was initially believed that international students experience difficulties making friends (Chapdelaine and Alexitch, 2004; Lin, 2006), more recent research demonstrates that international students report making the same number of friends and spending roughly the same amount of time with their friends, as domestic students do (Grayson, 2008). Further, international students reported having a wider range of friends from different cultures, including domestic Canadian students, in comparison to domestic students (Grayson, 2008). International students were also more actively involved in campus-related activities such as clubs and councils, and cultural events than domestic students (Grayson, 2011). Data such as these suggest that international students are engaging with their campus communities in positive ways. Indeed, there are many important predictors of positive campus engagement: research has found that academic relationships with faculty and staff, willingness to seek advice, and making friends while on campus were positive factors related to international student success. Further, it was found that social relationships and the connections on campus are what helped international students bounce back from an academic probation situation (Poyrazli and Isaiah, 2018).

In addition to shared experiences of international students, there are of course also culture-specific factors that can influence transition to an international study experience. As one example, a shared challenge faced by international Chinese students in the United States stemmed from socio-cultural differences pertaining to the collectivistic and individualistic culture differences between North America and China (Heng, 2021). Thus, international students have both shared and unique transitions into post-secondary education.

The Current Research Question

This research project was designed to better understand factors facilitating both domestic and international student success in post-secondary education. Drawing on past research, we explore four broad classes of variables related to student success, comparing experiences of domestic and international students. These four classes of variables were selected based on student success literature and include (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences and behaviors By understanding how these categories specifically differ between international and domestic students, we aim to provide new guidance and insights to post-secondary education institutions for supporting students as they transition into university.

Individual Factors

Many individual difference variables are relevant for student success. In this research, we explore the Big 5 as a trait-based understanding of personality, self-esteem, person- and thing- orientations, locus of control, and achievement motivation.

Personality is often thought of in the context of the Big 5 Personality Traits (e.g., Costa and McCrae, 1992): openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion. In this research, we explore individual difference variables including a very brief measure of the Big 5, self-esteem, person- and thing- orientations, and locus of control.

There is ample evidence that the Big 5 traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) are related to student success. More specifically, conscientiousness (Noftle and Robins, 2007; Caprara et al., 2011; Komarraju et al., 2011; De Feyter et al., 2012; Ivcevic and Brackett, 2014) extraversion (Komarraju et al., 2011; De Feyter et al., 2012), openness (Noftle and Robins, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Komarraju et al., 2011), and agreeableness (Poropat, 2009; Komarraju et al., 2011) have positive relationships with student success and overall achievement. Neuroticism on the other hand has mixed results. One study found that individuals higher in self-efficacy and neuroticism did experience academic success (De Feyter et al., 2012), and another that states that neuroticism only correlates positively with academic success in highly intelligent students (McKenzie, 1989; McKenzie et al., 2000). Where other studies have shown that individuals scoring high in neuroticism experience more anxiety and worry which impacts their overall student success negatively (Hess et al., 2000; Komarraju et al., 2011; Schneider and Preckel, 2017). When considering the cross-cultural differences related to these personality traits, there is evidence to suggest that the measurement of what the traits themselves are, does not differ (Rolland, 2002; McCrae and Terracciano, 2005). For example, extraversion is the same in China, Germany, and Canada. Some research has compared cultures relative to the Big Five personality traits, and have found that individuals from the United States, Canada, and New Zealand tend to score higher on extraversion in comparison to Asian countries (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005). That being said, research studies like this are discussing an average within their specific data, and it should be noted that there are large amounts of variability in all cultures (Costa et al., 2001).

Self-esteem is an overall evaluation of the self, and can be either positive or negative (Rosenberg, 1965). Although self-esteem has been argued to be related to student success, early studies cast doubt on this relationship (e.g., Seligman, 1994). Interestingly, though positive self-esteem is associated with many positive outcomes, and indeed it was found to be the most dominant and powerful predictor of happiness in some research (Furnham and Cheng, 2000), the influence of self-esteem in the context of education is not necessarily intuitive. It was previously believed that the relationship between self-esteem and academic performance was a bi-directional relationship where self-esteem changed direction based on the academic performance with higher self-esteem reported when the individual is satisfied with their academic performance, and lower self-esteem when the individual is not satisfied with their academic performance (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006). However, some research suggests that this bi-directional relationship may be linked to both low and high self-esteem individuals using self-handicapping strategies for different reasons (Martin and Brawley, 2002). Research has also demonstrated that a multidimensional measure of self-esteem (global self-esteem, academic self-esteem, physical ability self-esteem) may explain inconsistent findings, especially in situations when there is self-threat to specific domains (i.e., academia) (MacKinnon et al., 2015). Given the lack of clarity as to the role that self-esteem plays in academic success, we have included it for exploration. That being said, there is literature that does suggest that western cultures value self-esteem more than collectivist cultures (Brown, 2008), but most of these come from differences pertaining to cultural value indicators, and gender related equality (Bleidorn et al., 2016). This would suggest that self-esteem may be more of a concern for the domestic students.

Person- and Thing-Orientations capture the degree to which individuals selectively orient toward “person-based” (e.g., human-based) and “thing-based” (e.g., inanimate-based) stimuli in their environment, and it is thought that individuals gravitate to those sources that are most preferable (McIntyre and Graziano, 2019). These orientations have been shown to predict choice of major and retention within “thing” oriented disciplines in post-secondary contexts (e.g., STEM-oriented disciplines) (Woodcock et al., 2013; Bunce et al., 2017). Further demonstrating the importance of understanding person- and thing- orientations in the context of education, individuals stronger in thing-orientation have better recall of information when reading text (McIntyre et al., 2021). More specifically, in this study (McIntyre et al., 2021) the researchers used three brief educational texts discussing science and technology, which included two versions that manipulated the orientations (person and thing) to see if individuals who were stronger in either person or thing orientation recalled more information. It was found that the framing was not significant, but that individuals stronger in thing-orientation had better recall of the text. This study demonstrates that individuals who are stronger in Thing-orientation will thrive in an environment that focuses on text related recall. Thus, individuals who are person-oriented may use other forms of learning. Importantly, despite the importance of person- and thing- orientation in the context of education, relatively little is known about cross-cultural differences in these factors, and data have not been conclusive in determining reliable differences between cultures (Woodcock et al., 2013).

Research has demonstrated that STEM-based programs are typically “thing” oriented disciplines (Woodcock et al., 2013). Given that almost one-third of the students enrolled in STEM-type programs in Canada were international students, and 1 in 5 medical students are international students (Frenette et al., 2020), exploring student success in light of person- and thing- orientation may provide new insights into ways to support students based on their dominant orientation.

Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) is the degree to which an individual feels they have control over events in their lives, and it is an important factor in determining successful goal attainment. If a student has an internal locus of control, this student likely feels that they are achieving academically based on their own work, abilities, prosocial behaviors, and academic focus (Rotter, 1966; Hopkins et al., 2020). In contrast, students with an external locus of control tend to associate their academic outcomes and performance on chance, luck, fate, and other variables outside of their control (Rotter, 1966; Hopkins et al., 2020). A student’s locus of control orientation, whether it be internal or external, reflects their learning attitude. Internal locus of control has been found to be positively correlated with academic achievement (Millar and Irving, 1995; Karaman and Watson, 2017; Chukwuorji et al., 2018) and higher levels of academic achievement in comparison to undergraduates with an external locus of control (Ghonsooly and Elahi, 2010; Sagone and De Caroli, 2014; Hopkins et al., 2020). Understanding whether a student has internal or external locus of control will be an asset in building student resources to match their needs for pursuing academic success (Rotter, 1966; Rinn et al., 2014; Naik, 2015). There is evidence to suggest that there are cross-cultural differences related to locus of control, between western and eastern societies (Parsons and Schneider, 1974), specifically that Asian countries have significantly higher external locus of control scores in comparison to all other countries. In the same study, it was also found that students from India scored significantly lower in external locus of control in comparison to Canadian, Japanese, and French students. There was very little variability within western cultures pertaining to locus of control (Parsons and Schneider, 1974; Krampen and Wieberg, 1981).

Individuals vary in their levels of motivation for achievement. The Achievement Goals Questionnaire (Elliot and Sheldon, 1997) was constructed to understand how the motive to avoid failure (or the fear of failing) influenced goal-specific outcomes, and how the difference between motive to avoid failure and the need for achievement impacted student success outcomes. Research by Elliot and Church (1997), Elliot and Sheldon (1997), Elliot (1999), Elliot and Covington (2001), Elliot and McGregor (2001), Elliot and Thrash (2002), and Harackiewicz et al. (2002) has highlighted the importance of understanding whether students are avoiding failure, or striding for achievement, and how that changes their goal outcomes within academia. There is a dearth of research comparing and contrasting the role of academic achievement motivation between international and domestic students. This literature is large (Schwinger et al., 2021), and there has been a great deal of discussion around students’ motivations to achieve their academic goals, and the outcomes of their success pertaining to how they approach their academics (Ross et al., 2002). Many different factors influence these outcomes (Elliot and McGregor, 2001; Elliot and Church, 2003), from self-esteem (Rhodewalt and Tragakis, 2002; Covington, 2004), personality traits (Ross et al., 2002; Conrad and Patry, 2012), self-efficacy (Arazzini Stewart and De George-Walker, 2014), self-concept, and several emotional-motivational variables (Dweck, 2017) such as fear of failure (Elliot and Church, 2003; Martin and Marsh, 2003; De Castella et al., 2013), avoidance, test anxiety (Martin et al., 2014), and past levels of achievement (Covington, 2004), all leading to self-handicapping (Schwinger et al., 2014). Understanding students’ achievement goals will give an insight into many factors relevant to student success outcomes.

Psychological Needs

Psychological needs may also vary substantially between domestic and international students. Students who do not have a safe place to live, access to healthy food, and adequate sleep face significant barriers to success. Specifically pertaining to psychological needs, we explore whether international students have their basic needs met differently than domestic students. Highlighting the importance of exploring the satisfaction of basic needs, although international students are able to finance significant fees given their status, many have little additional income or funds available after their arrival, are limited in how much they can work (20 hours per week in Canada) and thus experience financial difficulties (Calder et al., 2016; Haverila et al., 2020).

Social Relationships and Connection to Campus

As noted by many student success theorists (e.g., Tinto, 1993, 2010; Astin, 1994, 2007), a student’s sense of belonging is extremely important to their adjustment to university. This can be measured in several ways. For example, one can assess social belonging and their connection to the university, campus engagement, and the importance of their social relationships and social life. International students gain a community through their social interactions on campus with both domestic and other international students (Rienties and Nolan, 2014). In addition, international students are necessarily isolated from their friends and family in their home countries once they leave for post-secondary education. Similarly, and perhaps most important for international students, the support available from their families who may be far away may greatly impact their success. Finally, their level of faith may be important factors in their ability and motivation to succeed (Jeynes, 2003; Regenerus, 2003; Burges et al., 2009; Chukwuorji et al., 2018), and again, could reasonably differ across domestic and international student groups.

Learning Preferences and Behaviors

Students who have low commitment to educational goals (e.g., Tinto, 1993, 2010) may have difficulty adapting to the academic culture, and thus may struggle. Although the concept of “learning styles” is not supported by research (e.g., Newton, 2015) it is certainly the case that students can identify preferences for types of learning experiences (Deale, 2019) and the match between their experience and learning preferences can influence their commitment to their education. If those learning preferences do not match the approaches used on campus, this may negatively affect student experience and success. It is not clear, however, if student learning preferences meaningfully link to success outcomes (Fan et al., 2015). Finally, considerations such as current study habits, confidence in and commitment to the selected major, and believing in one’s ability to achieve their goals (i.e., self-efficacy) are important to understand (Tinto, 1993, 2010). There is evidence to suggest that students from individualistic societies learn better by “doing,” where collectivistic students are learning more through “watching” (Marsh et al., 2006; Holtbrügge and Mohr, 2010; Sugahara and Boland, 2010), which may have a great impact on how they approach their studies overall.

Overview of Research

This study sought to explore how constructs related to (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences vary across a diverse group of first-year students. As discussed above, there are many relevant factors that can impact student success in the first year. However, first-year students are not a monolithic group. What characterizes a first-year student in terms of their personality, habits, and demographics may differ dramatically by whether they are domestic or international students. The purpose of our research was to begin to explore some of those differences and provide insight into what implications may come from those differences. Though we do hypothesize that international students will experience these factors differently than domestic students, we understand that this study is predominantly exploratory in nature, and we hope to learn more about how international students differ from domestic students when transitioning into university.

Materials and Methods

Participants and Procedure

Our survey instrument was sent via email to 1493 incoming undergraduate students at a mid-size, primarily undergraduate public university on the east coast of Canada. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the survey. The university has approximately 6,700 total students with a diverse student body, 32% of whom come from over 100 countries across the globe. Most international students come from five countries or regions: China, South Asia, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Middle East. Overall, sex is equally (50:50) split, with 90% of students doing undergraduate studies in Social Sciences and Humanities, Business, or Science programs. The vast majority (86%) of students are full-time and most (67%) of students come to the university directly from high school (versus transfer from other universities/college).

Four hundred and eleven (27.5% response rate) began the survey and 272 provided sufficient responses to be usable. Students (120 Male, 146 female) ranged in age from 16 to 48 (M = 19.00); 248 were new undergraduate students. One hundred eighty-five respondents were domestic students and eighty-six were international¹, with the majority (144; 53%) indicating they were Caucasian (see Table 1 for all demographic variables).

Survey Instrument

Due to space constraints, because this was an exploratory research project seeking to gain understanding differences between domestic and international students entering university across many constructs, the survey consisted of several pre-established scales, selected items from pre-established scales, and items constructed for the purpose of this study. In order to limit the size of the questionnaire that students completed, we used short (empirically validated) versions of scales, or a subset of items from those scales (see Appendix). In addition to asking students general demographic information, we asked questions broken into four categories: (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences and behaviors. The survey took on average 16 min to complete.

Demographics

Students were asked to report personal characteristics (age, gender, degree program registered in, employment, relationship status, number of children, fitness level, diet, exercise and activities, socio-economic status, current living arrangements) and whether they were first generation students (i.e., had no parent or stepparent who graduated from college or university) (see Table 1).

Individual Factors

Personality was measured using the 50-item IPIP representation of the Big-Five Markers (subscales: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness) as presented by Goldberg (1992). For all items, participants are asked to respond to statements starting with “I…”, allowing them to respond to the statement in relation to themselves. Extraversion was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.892) with statements like “… feel comfortable around people” or “…am quiet around strangers.” Agreeableness was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.789) with statements like “…take time out for others” or “…insult people.” Conscientiousness was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.747) with statements like “…am always prepared” or “…make a mess of things.” Neuroticism was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.841) with statements like “…am relaxed most of the time” or “…get upset easily.” Openness was measured with a 10-item scale (α = 0.776) with statements like “…have a vivid imagination” or “…do not have a good imagination”. Response options were along a 5-point Likert scale from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate.”

We used a subset of questions within The Achievement Goals Questionnaire (AGQ) (Elliot and Sheldon, 1997). Fourteen items were selected based on relevance to academia. Respondents are asked to indicate on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “not at all” to “very true of me” how much each item is true for them. Sample items include “avoid procrastination” and “impress others with my achievements.” These questions were assessed individually, as each question could provide insight into student goals.

We used only two items to measure person- and thing-orientations (Graziano et al., 2011) which assessed agreement to the questions: “I like to talk with others when I’m trying to understand new things” (person orientation) and “I like to take things apart to see how they work” (thing orientation) on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Self-esteem was measured by a single item “I see myself as someone who has high self-esteem” with a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” This single item measurement is justified within the self-esteem literature (Robins et al., 2001a,b, 2002; De Cremer et al., 2005).

Locus of control was measured via two items which assessed agreement to the questions: “I feel like I am in control of my destiny” (internal locus of control) and “I feel like powerful others have a lot of control over how my life will turn out” (external locus of control) with a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Psychological Needs

Psychological needs were measured by four items. Sleep was measured via two-items. The first item related to sleep, “I get as much as I need,” was measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The second item asked students to self-report how many hours they sleep within 24 h. Healthy food intake was measured by a single-item “I am confident I will have access to healthy food in the foreseeable future” measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Safe living environment was also measured by a single item “I have a safe place to live for the foreseeable future” measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Social Relationships and Connection to Campus

Social relationships were measured via five separate items adapted from surveys that have been used on campus for several years, and which are derived from National Surveys such as the Canadian University Survey Consortium (CUSC) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The items assessed agreement to the questions: “It’s important to me that I have a strong social network on campus,” “Building relationships with others is an important outcome for me in university,” “I can easily connect with my family and friends if I want to (either in-person or with technology),” “My social life is the most important part of being in school,” and “Faith is important to me” on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Connection to campus was measured via two separate items which assessed agreement to the questions: “I feel connected to the university” and “I intend to be engaged in campus activities this year” on a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Learning Preferences and Behaviors

Learning preferences were measured by nine items, where students were asked to respond to the question “I learn best when…” with options such as “when I am alone with my thoughts” or “when I am in a study group”. Response options were along a 1-7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Students also self-reported hours spent on studying outside of class time per week. Self-efficacy was measured via a single-item “when I make plans, I am certain I can make them work” (Sherer et al., 1982), with a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Students were also asked if they knew what major they wanted to take; their response option was also along a 1–7 Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Results

Overview

We have provided overall scores on all the different individual factors measured². Due to the unequal group size between international and domestic students (see Table 1), we conducted non-parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U Test to determine the differences between these two groups on the variables previously mentioned using assigned mean ranking.³ A Bonferroni correction was tested on the variables due to the multiple tests that were run, and Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U Test analysis being known for type-1 errors (Zimmerman, 2004). This correction was set at p = 0.002 (0.10/47 tests). That being said, due to the exploratory nature of the study, there will still be discussion related to the variables that are showing p-values below 0.05 (Table 2). We also explored the role of the student home country in the program, socio-economic status, gender, first-generation status, sleep habits, studying habits, family structure, relationship status, diet, physical activity, and employment as well (see Table 1).

Individual Factor Variables

Big Five

No significant differences were found for any of the Big Five measures for domestic versus international students.

Self-Esteem

No significant differences were found related to self-esteem.

Person-Thing Orientation

International students (mean rank = 149.17) reported being more person oriented compared to domestic students (mean rank = 129.88, U = 9088, p = 0.046). International students (mean rank = 151.81) also reported being more thing oriented compared to domestic students (mean rank = 128.65, U = 9314.5, p = 0.022).

Locus of Control

There were no significant differences regarding both internal and external locus of control.

Achievement Goals Questionnaire Items

International students (mean rank = 154.94) reported avoiding procrastination more compared to domestic students (mean rank = 127.20, U = 9583.5, p = 0.006). International students (mean rank = 156.99) reported that they avoid wasting time more than domestic students (mean rank = 126.24, U = 9760.5, p = 0.002). Domestic students (mean rank = 145.82) reported being on time for appointments more than international students reported (mean rank = 114.88, U = 6139, p = 0.001). Domestic students (mean rank = 142.25) also reported that they do things the best that they can more than international students reported (mean rank = 122.55, U = 6798, p = 0.046). There were no significant differences on the other ten items pertaining to achievement goals.

Psychological Needs Measures

Safe Living Environment

In terms of believing they had a safe place to live for the near future, international students (mean rank = 115.33) reported less belief in this than domestic students (mean rank = 145.61, U = 6177, p = 0.002).

Food Security

In terms of believing they had access to healthy food, international students (mean rank = 121.13) reported less belief in this in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 142.91, U = 6676, p = 0.025). This finding also supports our hypothesis and is reflected in the use of the food bank food bank on the campus where the survey was conducted. At that food bank over 60% of users are international students compared to being approximately 30% of students on campus (Daniels, 2021).

Sleep

There were no significant differences in self-reported hours of sleep needed, however, there was a significant difference relative to how many actual hours international students (mean rank = 121.87; mean hours: 6.85) slept throughout the day in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 142.57; mean hours: 7.16). Domestic students reported sleeping more (U = 6739.5, p = 0.038). Although international students are getting less sleep, they do not appear to perceive this as a concern.

Social Relations and Connection to Campus

Strong Social Network

International students (mean rank = 156.03) reported that it was more important to have a strong social network in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 126.69, U = 9677.5, p = 0.003).

Building Relationships

There were no significant differences in terms of perceived important outcomes of building relationships with others.

Connecting With Family and Friends

There were no significant differences in terms of perceived ability to connect with family and friends.

Social Life Importance

International students (mean rank = 156.14) were more likely to feel that their social life was the most important part of school in comparison to the domestic students (mean rank = 126.64, U = 9687, p = 0.003).

Faith

Perhaps the strongest difference was on the question regarding the importance of faith in a student’s life. International students reported more importance of faith (mean rank = 184.98) than domestic students (mean rank = 113.23, U = 12167.50, p < 0.001).

Campus Engagement

International students (mean rank = 150.28) reported higher intentions for campus engagement than domestic students (mean rank = 129.36, U = 9183, p = 0.035).

University Connection

There were no significant differences in terms of university connection.

Learning Preferences and Behaviors

Learning Preferences

International students reported a preference for using the textbook (mean rank = 168.33) as compared to domestic students (mean rank = 120.97, U = 10735, p < 0.001). International students also reported a preference for being alone with their thoughts (mean rank = 150.72) and using online tutorials (mean rank = 150.40) as compared to domestic students (mean rank = 129.16, U = 9221, p = 0.03; and mean rank = 129.31, U = 9193.5, p = 0.034).

Study Hours

International students reported studying for more hours per week (mean rank = 152.14; Mean hours: 14.56) than domestic students (mean rank = 127.72; Mean hours: 11.16, U = 9343, p = 0.016).

Self-Efficacy

There were no significant differences in terms of self-efficacy.

Major

International students (mean rank = 152.56) were more confident in their knowledge of what major they want to pursue in comparison to domestic students (mean rank = 128.30, U = 9379.5, p = 0.015).

Discussion

Summary of Findings

This research was an exploratory project to begin to understand differences between domestic and international students across four categories: (1) individual factors, (2) psychological needs, (3) social relationships and connections to campus, and (4) learning preferences and behaviors.

Interestingly, there were few differences between international and domestic students on most variables pertaining to individual factors that we explored. Using only two items, international students scored higher on both person- and thing- orientations than did domestic students. While the literature in this field is novel when it comes to international students and person- and thing- orientations (Woodcock et al., 2013), these findings would suggest institutions should be focusing on both types of learning styles when implementing course content. Future research should explore these differences more carefully and explore them within the context of a student program of study. Further, future research should also explore whether these orientations motivate both access and receptivity to different forms of academic support.

Psychological needs (see Appendix) were the variables that were most informative in terms of critical support needed for international students. Domestic students were more likely to report having a safe place to live for the near future, and more likely to report believing they had access to healthy food. The literature supports these findings, in that international students do struggle on average more than expected after their arrival as they are limited in how much money they can legally earn (Calder et al., 2016; Haverila et al., 2020). This is an indicator that basic needs may not be met for international students and should be a priority to be explored in greater detail within specific campus communities.

Our data suggested the clear importance of social relationships for international students, as compared to domestic students consistent with the literature (Rienties and Nolan, 2014). International students, as compared to domestic students, reported greater importance for a strong social network, greater importance for a social life, and higher intentions for campus engagement. It could be that the need for and importance of social networks are more salient for international students where domestic students are likely to be in closer proximity to their friends and families.

An important difference between domestic and international students in this category was their difference in rating of the importance of faith. International students placed much more importance on faith than did domestic students. This is supported by the literature (Jeynes, 2003; Regenerus, 2003; Burges et al., 2009; Chukwuorji et al., 2018) in that western cultures do not place as much importance on faith and religious practices. It is important that campus communities ensure comfortable access to faith-based resources for students, especially for international students who may not have clear access to these resources in the local community.

Based on this study, there appear to be differences in study behaviors for international and domestic students. International students prefer using the textbook, being alone with their thoughts, and using online tutorials to a greater degree than domestic students. This mirrors the literature pertaining to international students learning more through “watching” in comparison to “doing” (Marsh et al., 2006; Holtbrügge and Mohr, 2010; Sugahara and Boland, 2010). It should be noted that international students in this study did report that they were both Person and Thing oriented; thus they also may enjoy learning through “doing”, but it highlights their preference for “watching” which may be predictive of their ultimate engagement with their studies. International students also report studying more than domestic students and have more confidence in knowing what major they want to pursue.

Many variables assessed showed no significant differences between international and domestic student in this sample. This was not entirely unexpected. It does suggest that institutions can use these results to understand when different strategies might be more effective with diverse groups of students. There are also many variables we did not assess. An example could be to explore self-handicapping, and how these factors lead to students succeeding (Schwinger et al., 2021).

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the valuable contributions and insights provided by these data, some limitations and directions for future research remain. For example, all these data were self-reported. Although this is reasonable for personality and demographic data, there are opportunities for collecting objective measures regarding topics such health, grades, financial situation, etc., which could be worth exploring in the future.

A second limitation is that these data come from a single Canadian institution. It is likely that the mix of students at other institutions, as well as type and location of institutions could influence student responses. Thus, future work should look at other institutions in other locales to determine if similar results would be found or if different patterns might emerge.

It is also worth noting that for the purposes of this analysis, the international students were all grouped together instead of broken out by country (they could come from vastly different cultures). Because the international students at the study institution were varied and resulted in small group sizes when broken down, sub-analyses could not be done to look at the impact of country or region or original on the results. However, it stands to reason that this could have an impact. Exploring larger samples of specific populations in future research could identify valuable distinctions between groups.

Also, due to the number of variables that were assessed within the analysis, there is a probability that a family-wise type-1 error may have occurred. A Bonferroni correction was conducted and was explained that significance was at p = 0.002, but with the nature of the study, we felt it necessary to discuss any variables that approached significance under p-values of 0.05.

As previously discussed, this paper took a broad and exploratory approach to measuring a variety of characteristics of students and their experiences. However, as noted in our introduction, methods, and results sections, in order to reduce as much as possible, the length of the questionnaire, we often used single-item measures of constructs (e.g., self-esteem) or only smaller subscales of existing measures. This is clearly a limitation in that it is possible that complete scales may have resulted in different outcomes. However, given the fact that few differences were found (e.g., especially on personality), this suggests that this broader approach may be an effective way to identify key characteristics or measures that should be explored further in future research.

Finally, as the survey was administered to incoming students, it would be interesting to see the survey re-administered to the same students at a later point. They may have different perceptions post the first semester, and it would be insightful to explore whether their full experience of their first semester changed their responses in the future.

Conclusion

What the research presented here has demonstrated is that students come to university with their own set of individual characteristics, preferences, experiences, and needs. Institutions who want to support the success of their students need to understand what those differences are. Although domestic versus international is one way of thinking about, and assessing, student uniqueness, it has within it a variety of differences that can be assessed. It is quite plausible that there is more variability within domestic or international student populations than between them but understanding differences across groups is vital as well. This research takes one step to assess differences across domains such as student personality, needs, and preferences.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  Arazzini Stewart M. De George-Walker L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and self-efficacy: a path model.Pers. Individ. Differ.66160–164. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Astin A. W. (1994). Higher Education and the Concept of Community.Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Astin A. W. (2007). Mindworks: Becoming More Conscious in an Unconscious World.Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Barker E. T. Howard A. L. Galambos N. L. Wrosch C. (2016). Tracking affect and academic success across university: happy students benefit from bouts of negative mood.Dev. Psychol.52:2022. 10.1037/dev0000231

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Barker E. T. Howard A. L. Villemaire-Krajden R. Galambos N. L. (2018). The rise and fall of depressive symptoms and academic stress in two samples of university students.J. Youth Adolescence471252–1266. 10.1007/s10964-018-0822-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Belenky M. F. Clinchy B. M. Goldberger N. R. Tarule J. M. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, Vol. 15. New York, NY: Basic books.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Berry J. W. Kim U. Minde T. Mok D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress.Int. Migration Rev.21491–511.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Bleidorn W. Arslan R. C. Denissen J. J. A. Rentfrow P. J. Gebauer J. E. Potter J. et al (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.111396–410. 10.1037/pspp0000078.supp

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Bowry C. J. (2002). An Initial Exploration of the Impact of Foreign Students on the Education of Domestic Students at Queen’s University.Master’s thesis. Belfast: Queen’s University.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Brown R. A. (2008). American and Japanese beliefs about self-esteem.Asian J. Soc. Psychol.11293–299. 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00270.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Bunce L. Baird A. Jones S. E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance.Stud. Higher Educ.421958–1978. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Burges S. Wilson D. Greaves E. (2009). An Investigation of Educational Outcomes by Ethnicity and Religion: A Report for the National Equality Panel. Available online at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/ethnicityreligion.pdf(accessed October 1, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Calder M. J. Richter S. Mao Y. Kovacs Burns K. Mogale R. S. Danko M. (2016). International students attending Canadian universities: their experiences with housing, finances, and other issues.Canadian J. Higher Educ.4692–110. 10.47678/cjhe.v46i2.184585

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Caldwell K. Emery L. Harrison M. Greeson J. (2011). Changes in mindfulness, well-being, and sleep quality in college students through taijiquan courses: a cohort control study.J. Alternat. Complement. Med.17931–938. 10.1089/acm.2010.0645

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Caprara G. V. Vecchione M. Alessandri G. Gerbino M. Barbaranelli C. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: a longitudinal study.Br. J. Educ. Psychol.8178–96. 10.1348/2044-8279.002004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Chapdelaine R. F. Alexitch L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: model of culture shock for international graduate students.J. College Student Dev.45167–184. 10.1353/csd.2004.0021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Chataway C. J. Berry J. W. (1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping, and adaptation: a comparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French, and English students in Canada.Canadian J. Behav. Sci./Revue Canadienne Sci. Comportement21:295. 10.1037/h0079820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Chukwuorji J. C. Ituma E. A. Ugwu L. E. (2018). Locus of control and academic engagement: mediating role of religious commitment.Curr. Psychol.37792–802. 10.1007/s12144-016-9546-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Church A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment.Psychol. Bull.91:540. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Conrad N. Patry M. (2012). Conscientiousness and academic performance: a mediational analysis.Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn.61–14. 10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Costa P. T. Jr. Terracciano A. McCrae R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.81322–331. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Costa P. T. McCrae R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory.Psychol. Assess.4:5. 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Council of Ministers of Education [CMEC] (2021). Over 50 Years of Pan-Canadian Leadership Education. Available online at: https://www.cmec.ca/299/education-in-canada-an-overview/index.html(accessed December 20, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Covington M. V. (2004). “Self-worth theory goes to college or do our motivation theories motivate?,” in Big Theories Revisited, edsMcInerneyD. M.Van EttenS. (Charlotte: Information Age Publishing), 91–114.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Crombie A. Brindley J. Harris D. Marks-Maran D. Thompson T. M. (2013). Factors that enhance rates of completion: what makes students stay?Nurse Educ. Today331282–1287. 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Crombie A. Ilich J. Z. Dutton G. R. Panton L. B. Abood D. A. (2009). The freshman weight gain phenomenon revisited.Nutr. Rev.6783–94. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00143.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Daniels A. (2021). Personal communication.7th, September.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  De Castella K. Byrne D. Covington M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement.J. Educ. Psychol.105861–880. 10.1037/a0032464

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  De Cremer D. van Knippenberg B. van Knippenberg D. Mullenders D. Stinglhamber F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem.J. Appl. Psychol.903–12. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  De Feyter T. Caers R. Vigna C. Berings D. (2012). Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation.Learn. Individ. Differ.22439–448. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Deale C. S. (2019). Learning preferences instead of learning styles: a case study of hospitality management students’ perceptions of how they learn best and implications for teaching and learning.Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn.13:11. 10.20429/ijsotl.2019.130211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Dweck C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development.Psychol. Rev.124689–719. 10.1037/rev0000082

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Elliot A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.Educ. Psychol.34169–189. 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Elliot A. J. Church M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.72:218. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Elliot A. J. Church M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping.J. Pers.71369–396. 10.1111/1467-6494.7103005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Elliot A. J. Covington M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation.Educ. Psychol. Rev.1373–92. 10.1023/A:1009009018235

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Elliot A. J. McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.80:501. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Elliot A. J. Sheldon K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: a personal goals analysis.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.73:171. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.171

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Elliot A. J. Thrash T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.82:804. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Fan K. K. Xiao P. W. Su C. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum.Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.111211–1229. 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Frenette M. Choi Y. Doreleyers A. (2020). International Student Enrolment in Postsecondary Education Programs Prior to COVID-19. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2020003-eng.htm(accessed December, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Furnham A. Cheng H. (2000). Perceived parental behaviour, self-esteem and happiness.Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol.: Int. J. Res. Soc. Genet. Epidemiol. Ment. Health Serv.35463–470. 10.1007/s001270050265

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Ghonsooly B. Elahi M. (2010). Validating locus of control questionnaire and examining its relation to General English (GE) achievement.J. Teach. Language Skills2117–143. 10.22099/jtls.2012.403

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Gilligan C. (1977). In a different voice: women’s conceptions of self and of morality.Harvard Educ. Rev.47481–517. 10.17763/haer.47.4.g6167429416hg5l0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Gilligan C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Goff L. (2011). Evaluating the outcomes of a peer-mentoring program for students transitioning to postsecondary education.Canadian J. Scholarship Teach. Learn.2:2. 10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Goldberg L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.Psychol. Assess.4:26. 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Grayson J. P. (2008). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international students at four Canadian universities.High. Educ. Res. Dev.27215–230. 10.1080/07294360802183788

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Grayson J. P. (2011). Cultural capital and academic achievement of first generation domestic and international students in Canadian universities.Br. Educ. Res. J.37605–630. 10.1080/01411926.2010.487932

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Graziano W. G. Habashi M. M. Woodcock A. (2011). Exploring and measuring differences in person–thing orientations.Pers. Individ. Differ.5128–33. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Guthrie J. Mancino L. Lin C. T. J. (2015). Nudging consumers toward better food choices: policy approaches to changing food consumption behaviors.Psychol. Market.32501–511. 10.1002/mar.20795

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Hanbazaza M. Ball G. D. Farmer A. P. Maximova K. Farahbakhsh J. Willows N. D. (2017). A comparison of characteristics and food insecurity coping strategies between international and domestic postsecondary students using a food bank located on a university campus.Canadian J. Dietetic Pract. Res.78208–211. 10.3148/cjdpr-2017-012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Harackiewicz J. M. Barron K. E. Pintrich P. R. Elliot A. J. Thrash T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating.J. Educ. Psychol.94638–645. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Haverila M. J. Haverila K. McLaughlin C. (2020). Variables affecting the retention intentions of students in higher education institutions: a comparison between international and domestic students.J. Int. Students10358–382. 10.32674/jis.v10i2.1849

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Hayle E. M. (2008). Educational Benefits of Internationalizing Higher Education: The Students’ Perspectives.Master’s thesis. Belfast: Queen’s University.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Heng T. T. (2021). Socioculturally attuned understanding of and engagement with Chinese international undergraduates.J. Diversity High. Educ.10.1037/dhe0000240

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Hess B. Sherman M. F. Goodman M. (2000). Eveningness predicts academic procrastination: the mediating role of neuroticism.J. Soc. Behav. Pers.15:61.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Holtbrügge D. Mohr A. T. (2010). Cultural determinants of learning style preferences.Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ.9622–637. 10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659880

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Hopkins C. Ferrell O. C. Ferrell L. Hopkins K. Merkle A. C. (2020). Self-Efficacy, locus of control and engagement as determinants of grades in a principles of marketing class.Market. Educ. Rev.30236–251. 10.1080/10528008.2020.1837634

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Huang Y. S. (2017). Academic Challenges and Strategies: An SRL Comparison of Canadian-Domestic and Chinese-International Students’ Transition to University.Doctoral dissertation. Victoria: University of Victoria.

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Ivcevic Z. Brackett M. (2014). Predicting school success: comparing conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability.J. Res. Pers.5229–36. 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Jeynes W. (2003). Religion, Education, and Academic Success.Greenwich: Information Age Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Karaman M. A. Watson J. C. (2017). Examining associations among achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction: a comparison of US and international undergraduate students.Pers. Individ. Differ.111106–110. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Klineberg O. Hull W. F. (1979). At a Foreign University: An International Study of Adaptation and Coping.New York, NY: Praeger.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Kohlberg L. (1976). “Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach,” in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues, ed.LickonaT. (Holt, NY: Rinehart and Winston). 10.1007/BF02132782

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Komarraju M. Karau S. J. Schmeck R. R. Avdic A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement.Pers. Individ. Differ.51472–477. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Krampen G. Wieberg H. J. W. (1981). Three aspects of locus of control in German, American, and Japanese university students. J. Soc. Psychol. 113, 133–134. 10.1080/00224545.1981.9924357

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Lin C. (2006). Culture shock and social support: an investigation of a Chinese student organization on a US campus.J. Intercultural Commun. Res.35117–137. 10.1080/17475750600909279

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  MacKinnon S. P. Smith S. M. Carter-Rogers K. (2015). Multidimensional self-esteem and test derogation after negative feedback.Canadian J. Behav. Sci./Revue Canadienne Sci. Comportement47:123. 10.1037/a0038364

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Marsh H. W. Hau K.-T. Artelt C. Baumert J. Peschar J. L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries.Int. J. Test.6311–360. 10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Martin A. J. Marsh H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: friend or foe?Australian Psychol.3831–38. 10.1080/00050060310001706997

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Martin A. J. Yu K. Papworth B. Ginns P. Collie R. J. (2014). Motivation and engagement in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and China: testing a multi-dimensional framework.J. Psychoeducational Assessment331–12. 10.1177/0734282914546287

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Martin K. A. Brawley L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: the contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy.Self Identity1337–351. 10.1080/15298860290106814

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  McComb S. A. Kirkpatrick J. M. (2016). Impact of pedagogical approaches on cognitive complexity and motivation to learn: comparing nursing and engineering undergraduate students.Nurs. Outlook6437–48. 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.10.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  McCrae R. R. Terracciano A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.88:547. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  McIntyre M. M. Graziano W. G. (2019). A snapshot of person and thing orientations: how individual differences in interest manifest in everyday life.Pers. Individ. Differ.136160–165. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  McIntyre M. M. Gundlach J. L. Graziano W. G. (2021). Liking guides learning: the role of interest in memory for STEM topics.Learn. Individ. Differ.85:101960. 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101960

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  McKenzie J. (1989). Neuroticism and academic achievement: the Furneaux factor.Pers. Individ. Differ.10509–515. 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90032-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  McKenzie J. Taghavi-Khonsary M. Tindell G. (2000). Neuroticism and academic achievement: the Furneaux Factor as a measure of academic rigour.Pers. Individ. Differ.293–11. 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00170-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  McLean-Meyinsse P. E. Harris E. G. Taylor S. S. Gager J. V. (2013). Examining college students’ daily consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables.J. Food Distribut. Res.4410–16. 10.22004/ag.econ.158772

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Millar R. Irving P. (1995). Academic locus of control in British undergraduate students.Br. J. Educ. Psychol.65331–340. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01153.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Mueller M. P. Blondin S. A. Korn A. R. Bakun P. J. Tucker K. L. Economos C. D. (2018). Behavioral correlates of empirically-derived dietary patterns among university students.Nutrients10:716. 10.3390/nu10060716

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Naik A. R. (2015). A study on locus of control among college students of Gulbarga City.I. J. Ind. Psychol.248–54.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Newton P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education.Front. Psychol.6:1908. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Ngobia J. W. (2011). Internationalization and the Undergraduate Student Experience: How Domestic Students Experience Interaction with International Students.Doctoral Dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Noftle E. E. Robins R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.93:116. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Parsons O. A. Schneider J. M. (1974). Locus of control in university students from Eastern and Western societies.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.42456–461. 10.1037/h0036677

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Parsons R. (2010). The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the United States and Australia.J. Stud. Int. Educ.14313–334.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Perry W. G. J. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme.New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Poropat A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance.Psychol. Bull.135:322. 10.1037/a0014996

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  Poyrazli S. Isaiah J. (2018). International students’ journeys from academic probation to academic success.Int. Perspect. Psychol.: Res. Pract. Consult.7:62. 10.1037/ipp0000083

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Racette S. B. Deusinger S. S. Strube M. J. Highstein G. R. Deusinger R. H. (2008). Changes in weight and health behaviors from freshman through senior year of college.J. Nutr. Educ. Behav.4039–42. 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.01.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Regenerus M. D. (2003). Religion and adolescent outcomes: a review of research.Rev. Religious Res.44394–413. 10.2307/3512217

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Rhodewalt F. Tragakis M. (2002). “Self-handicapping and the social self: the costs and rewards of interpersonal self-construction,” in The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Intergroup Perspectives, edsForgasJ.WilliamsK. (Philadelphia: Psychology Press) 121–143.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  Rienties B. Nolan E. M. (2014). Understanding friendship and learning networks of international and host students using longitudinal Social Network Analysis.Int. J. Int. Relat.41165–180. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.12.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  Rinn A. Boazman J. Jackson A. Borria B. (2014). Locus of control, academic self-concept, and academic dishonesty among high ability students.J. Scholarship Teach. Learn.1488–114. 10.14434/josotl.v14i4.12770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Robins R. W. Hendin H. M. Trzesniewski K. H. (2001a). Measuring global self-esteem: construct validation of a single-item measure and the rosenberg self-esteem scale.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.27151–161.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  Robins R. W. Tracy J. L. Trzesniewski K. H. Potter J. Gosling S. D. (2001b). Personality correlates of self-esteem.J. Res. Pers.35463–482. 10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  Robins R. W. Trzesniewski K. H. Tracy J. L. Gosling S. D. Potter J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life-span.Psychol. Aging17423–434. 10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.423

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Rohrlich B. F. (1991). Host country and re-entry adjustment of student sojourners.Int. J. Intercultural Relat.15163–182. 10.1016/0147-1767(91)90027-E

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  Rolland J. P. (2002). “The cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality,” in The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures. International and Cultural Psychology Series, edsMcCraeR. R.AllikJ. (Boston, MA: Springer).

  • Google Scholar

• 102

  Rosenberg M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (SES), Vol. 148. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  Ross S. R. Canada K. E. Rausch M. K. (2002). Self-handicapping and the Five Factor Model of personality: mediation between neuroticism and conscientiousness.Pers. Individ. Differ.321173–1184. 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00079-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  Rotter J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychol. Monogr.: General Appl.80:1. 10.1037/h0092976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  Sagone E. De Caroli M. E. (2014). Locus of control and academic self-efficacy in university students: the effects of Self-concepts.Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci.114222–228. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.689

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  Schneider M. Preckel F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses.Psychol. Bull.143:565. 10.1037/bul0000098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  Schroeter C. Corder T. Brookes B. Reller V. (2019). An incentive-based health program using MyPlate: a pilot study analyzing college students’ dietary intake behavior.J. Am. College Health69252–259. 10.1080/07448481.2019.1661845

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Schwinger M. Trautner M. Pütz N. Fabianek S. Lemmer G. Lauermann F. et al (2021). Why do students use strategies that hurt their chances of academic success? A meta-analysis of antecedents of academic self-handicapping.J. Educ. Psychol.10.1037/edu0000706

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  Schwinger M. Wirthwein L. Lemmer G. Steinmayr R. (2014). Academic self-handicapping and achievement: a meta-analysis.J. Educ. Psychol.106744–761. 10.1037/a0035832

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  Seligman L. (1994). Developmental Career Counseling and Assessment.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Sherer M. Maddux J. E. Mercandante B. Prentice-Dunn S. Jacobs B. Rogers R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation.Psychol. Rep.51663–671. 10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  Sogari G. Velez-Argumedo C. Gómez M. I. Mora C. (2018). College students and eating habits: a study using an ecological model for healthy behavior.Nutrients10:1823. 10.3390/nu10121823

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Statistics Canada (2017). Education in Canada, Results of the 2015 Census. The Daily. Available online at:https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171129/dq171129a-eng.htm(accessed November 30, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  Statistics Canada (2020). International Students Accounted for the Growth in Postsecondary Enrolments in 2018/2019. The Daily. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/201125/dq201125e-eng.htm(accessed November 30, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  Sugahara S. Boland G. (2010). The role of cultural factors in the learning style preferences of accounting students: a comparative study between Japan and Australia. Account. Educ. Int. J. 19, 235–255. 10.1080/09639280903208518

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  Tinto V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd Edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  Tinto V. (2010). “From theory to action: exploring the institutional conditions for student retention,” in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed.SmartJ. (Dordrecht: Springer), 51–89. 10.1007/978-90-481-8598-6_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Trautwein U. Lüdtke O. Köller O. Baumert J. (2006). Self-esteem, academic self-concept, and achievement: how the learning environment moderates the dynamics of self-concept.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.90334–349. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.334

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  Uehara A. Hicks J. (1989). “Institutional responses to socio-cultural adjustment: problems of foreign students in Japan,” in Foreign Students and Internationalization of Higher Education, ed.EbuchiK. (Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University), 129–143.

  • Google Scholar

• 120

  Vella-Zarb R. A. Elgar F. J. (2009). The ‘freshman 5′: a meta-analysis of weight gain in the freshman year of college.J. Am. College Health58161–166. 10.1080/07448480903221392

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  Vertesi C. (1999). “Students as agents of change,” in A New World of Knowledge: Canadian Universities and Globalization, edsBondS. L.LemassonJ. (Ottawa: IDRC) 129–158.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  Woodcock A. Graziano W. G. Branch S. E. Habashi M. M. Ngambeki I. Evangelou D. (2013). Person and thing orientations: psychological correlates and predictive utility.Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci.4116–123.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  Zimmerman D. W. (2004). Inflation of Type I error rates by unequal variances associated with parametric, nonparametric, and rank-transformation tests.Psicológica25103–133.

  • Google Scholar