A Study on How Non-Matriculated Chinese and Saudi Students Perceive Their Language Learning Experience in an Esl Context at a U

A STUDY ON HOW NON-MATRICULATED CHINESE AND SAUDI STUDENTS

PERCEIVE THEIR LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN AN ESL CONTEXT AT A

U.S. UNIVERSITY

A dissertation submitted to the

Kent State University

College of Education, Health, and Human Services

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Murat Dagistan

August, 2019

A dissertation written by Murat Dagistan

B.A., Hacettepe University, 1995

M.A., Hacettepe University, 1998

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019

Approved by

Todd Hawley , Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Sarah Rilling , Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Walter Gershon , Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Accepted by

Alexa Sandmann , Director, School of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum

Studies,

James Hannon , Dean, College of Education, Health, & Human Services

iii

MURAT, DAGISTAN., Ph.D., August 2019 School of Teaching, Learning

and Curriculum Studies

A STUDY ON HOW NON-MATRICULATED CHINESE AND SAUDI STUDENTS

PERCEIVE THEIR LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN AN ESL CONTEXT AT A

U.S. UNIVERSITY (163 pp.)

Director of Dissertation: Todd Hawley, Ph.D.

The purpose of this mixed-method study was to investigate how non-matriculated

Chinese and Saudi students perceive their language learning experiences in an ESL context in a

U.S. University. Specifically, it examines how each group perceives differences in language teaching methods and language learning environment between their native communities and the

United States during the language learning process. The study also seeks an answer about how those differences influence the nature and pace of their linguistic development of each group.

Both Chinese and Saudi speaking students have quite distinctive learner characteristics, and this research will delve into how their experiences and perceptions compare in regards to their

English Education.

Different types of data sources, such as online survey questions and participant interviews were collected and analyzed in order to get some answers to the research questions of this dissertation. The findings in general showed that both Chinese and Saudi students face several challenges in and around language learning environment. This study also revealed that

language teachers and administrators have critical roles while addressing the educational and social needs of these students. To a large extent, their knowledge, actions, and awareness over the cultural identities of these two student groups were the critical factors that determined the overall quality and the pace of language learning experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my dissertation director, Dr. Todd

Hawley. I also would like to thank my other committee members Drs. Sarah Rilling and Walter

Gershon for their help and support during this journey.

I would also like to acknowledge my close friends and colleagues, Loubna Bilali, Jameel

Bakhsh, Wendy Huang, Runmei Xing, Xiuli Yue, Tom Stafford, Anthony Schreffler, Rachel Foot,

Davut Sababoglu, Oral Erlat, and my brother Nihat Dagistan. Thank you all for your encouragement and advice along the way.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family, especially my mom and dad, brothers and sisters, who supported me both personally and academically.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 1 Reasons for Increasing Numbers of International Students ...... 6 Research about International Students’ Experiences in Different Areas ...... 10 Relevant Researcher Background ...... 13 Rationale ...... 16 Purpose of the Study ...... 16 Research Questions ...... 17 The Significance of the Study ...... 17 Assumptions and Limitations of the Study ...... 17 Summary ...... 18

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 19 The Reasons Why International Students Choose to Study in the United States ...... 19 Language Education in Chinese and Arab countries ...... 23 Language Education in China ...... 24 Language education in Arab countries ...... 27 Challenges of Studying Abroad ...... 30 Cultural Aspects of Language Learning ...... 34 Socialization Problems during the Language Learning Experience ...... 38 Traditional vs. Constructivist Language Teaching ...... 41 Summary ...... 45

III. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ...... 46 Research Questions ...... 46 Appropriateness of the Research Design ...... 46 Research Design...... 51 Participants and Settings ...... 55 Data Collection ...... 56 The Survey ...... 56 Focus Group Interviews with Chinese and Arab students ...... 57 Interviews with Language Instructors ...... 60

Interviews with Administrators...... 61 Data Analysis ...... 62 Summary ...... 64

IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...... 66 Quantitative Data Analysis ...... 66 Educational Background of Participants ...... 67 Current Language Learning Experiences of Participants ...... 71 The Participants’ Perceptions of Their Language Learning Experience and American Culture...... 76 Qualitative Data Analysis ...... 83 Student Focus Group Interview Analyses...... 83 The focus group analyses of Saudi students...... 84 The focus group analyses of Chinese students...... 85 Comparisons of Chinese and Saudi Student Populations through Triangulation ...... 88 Learner differences from administrators’ and instructors’ perspective...... 88 Administrator interpretations...... 89 Instructor interpretations...... 90 Difficulties Chinese and Saudi students have in the target culture...... 90 Challenges for learners from administrators’ perspective...... 91 Challenges for learners from instructors’ perspective...... 91 Perceptions of Chinese and Saudi students about Domestic Students and Local residents...... 92 Students’ perceptions of respect from administrators’ perspective...... 92 Students’ perceptions of respect from instructors’ perspective...... 93 Sources of conflicts/indifference for both international students and the locals...... 93 Sources of conflicts from administrators’ perspectives...... 93 Summary of Findings ...... 94 An Overwhelming Transition from Outdated Language Learning to a Relatively More Student-Oriented Model...... 95 Single-Gender and -Language Interview Groups Making the Participants more Expressive ...... 95 The Number of Chinese and Arab Students in the Learning Context as a Negative Factor ...... 96 Tension and Lack of Interaction between Chinese and Arab Students ...... 96 Distinct Cultural Definitions for the Concept of “Respect” ...... 97 Achieving Similar Language Development despite Differences ...... 98 Distance between International Students and American Individuals On and Off Campus ...... 98 Learning Habits of International Students ...... 99 Limited Social Activities ...... 100 Favoritism in Language Classes ...... 101 Overwhelming Class and Exam Schedules...... 101 The Quality of Language Materials and Tests ...... 102

V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ...... 103 The Overview of the Study ...... 104 Implications of the Study ...... 108 The Orientation about Cultural Diversity is Necessary ...... 108 The Use of Mother Tongue in Surveys and Interviews should be Encouraged ...... 109 A More Inclusive School Policy should be Established ...... 110 More Welcoming Housing Options On-Campus should be Offered ...... 111 Teaching Diverse Student Populations should be a Part of Professional Development Programs ...... 111 More Opportunities Need to be Provided for All Students to Develop Cross-cultural Competence...... 113 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 113 Limitations ...... 114 Summary ...... 116 Conclusion ...... 116

APPENDICES…………………...………..………………….……………………..……….……..………..….119 APPENDIX A: SELF-REPORT ONLINE SURVEY……………....……………………………..……120 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM……..…...…..128 APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM……….130 APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM…..………………….…...... ….132 APPENDIX E: AUDIO TAPE/VIDEO CONSENT FORM……………….………………...…….….134 APPENDIX F: ONLINE SURVEY STUDENT RECRUITMENT EMAIL…………..……….….136 APPENDIX G: STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS……………………………………………...138 APPENDIX H: LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS……………….……..140 APPENDIX I: ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS……………………………...... ….142

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………...…..……...…….144

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Visual model for mixed-methods sequential explanatory design procedures (Ivankova,

Creswell, and Stick, 2006) ...... 63

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Q17- Common themes reflecting weaknesses of language programs in the home country ..... 70

2. Q21- Did you study English in another institution before you came to [your current

institution]? ...... 72

3. Q23- Length of studying English in another state or country? ...... 73

4. Q24- Common themes reflecting the reasons why participants specifcally preferred

Ohio and the United States ...... 73

5. Q25- Emerging themes for the goals of learning English in Ohio and the United States ...... 74

6. Q26- Skills needed to achieve their individual goals ...... 74

7. Q27- The reasons why the participants chose a northeastern Ohio university ...... 75

8. Q39- Perceptions of Chinese and Arab students about Americans ...... 77

9. Q40- How does the lack of knowledge of Americans about their culture influence the

language learning experience of Chinese and Arab students? ...... 78

10. Q41- Do you feel you are respected by the Americans at your university? ...... 78

11. Q42- Do you feel you are respected by the Americans in nearby communities or other

communities in Ohio? ...... 78

12. Q30- T-test results regarding the perceived progress achieved in different skills ...... 81

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study investigates how non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students perceive their language learning experience in English as a Second Language (ESL) context in a U.S. university. Specifically, it investigates experiences of two prevalent but understudied student populations, namely, Chinese and Saudi students. This introductory chapter first articulates the research problem in detail together with the reasons why there is an influx in the number of international students and why universities in the U.S. specifically attract increasing numbers of learners from China and from Saudi Arabia.

The study additionally presents current research related to the experiences of international students in the ESL context and other research about international students’ experiences in different areas. Finally, it gives the background of the study, including the researcher’s profile, his experiences with the groups involved in this study, and his motives for doing the research on the perceptions of non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students about their language learning experience in an ESL context in an American university. This chapter, in its last section, addresses the purpose and the significance of the study by referring to the goal of this research, research questions, and finally, limitations and assumptions.

Statement of the Problem

Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number students from around the world coming to the United States to learn English as a foreign language. The primary reason behind this popular movement is changing demographics in post-secondary

2 education in developing countries. Due to that massive change, there are limited resources/funds, teaching force, space or educational opportunities for students in developing countries (e.g.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Libya) or even in developed countries (e.g. China) (Glewwe &

Kremer, 2005). To put it another way, there is a great demand for higher education, but there is a very limited supply to meet that increasing interest. That is why, more and more students in these countries view studying a major subject at an American university as a viable alternative.

The decision to study in a university in the United States, however, presents far more challenges to these students than they anticipated. What are those challenges? How do students from China and Saudi Arabia perceive them? How do their perceptions affect their language learning progress and social interactions in the American educational context? In which areas do

Chinese and Saudi students differ? How do language instructors and school administrators address those differences? Overall, this study aims to seek plausible answers to all these questions but specifically concentrates on areas to understand better what these students actually feel throughout their language education in the school context in the United States.

Indeed, once international students are accepted by an American university, they begin to face many challenges. One of the most critical challenges is that they are required to demonstrate that they have gained adequate language skills for academic studies on undergraduate or graduate levels. To an extent, language proficiency represents a critical obstacle for international students before they begin to study a major subject. There are very few options for international students to demonstrate that they are linguistically ready for taking courses. These options are limited to taking and passing TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), IELTS

(The International English Language Testing System) or other equivalent tests or to register for courses in ESL (English as a Second Language) centers until they reach the requisite proficiency

3 in basic language skills in one or a maximum of three years (Bamford & Mizokawa, 1991). It should be noted that the whole language learning process abroad is a critical and transitional period for international students, which can be highly complex, difficult or even overwhelming

(Hernandez, 2010; Xu, 2010).

Another challenge comes from the cultural change these students have to face. In fact, an educational switch from closed communities, which can be defined as those that “intentionally limit or filter relations with other relatively more liberal communities” (Hickey, 2012), to an inner circle country, which can be defined as “the traditional, historical and sociolinguistic bases of English where English is used as a primary language, including the U.S.” (Kachru, 1992), may not be so smooth as expected by students, teachers, and school administrators. According to

Kachru, the Inner Circle includes the Native English-speaking countries such as England, the

United States, and Canada; and the Expanding Circle, which Hickey addressed as closed communities, includes China and Arab countries. Closed communities are largely affected by the western civilization (Nechifor, 1998), and as a result, the English language is studied as a foreign language that has gradually gained importance in business, science, technology, and education.

Individuals in China and Arab communities are quite motivated to learn English these days in order to find a job in future promising areas like business, science, and technology. Since they do not grow up speaking English from infancy, they heavily rely on language education, and this is exactly where the problems in language learning experience began.

Language learning problems of the Chinese and Arabs are partly due to language- teaching courses in their communities that are still under the influence of behavioristic language teaching approaches, such as Grammar- Translation and Audio-Lingual Methods (Al-Seghayer,

2014). These language-teaching approaches may not effectively support learners as they struggle

4 to acquire essential language skills. This limited progress stems from the very principles of such outdated methodologies that are built upon endless repetition, memorization of long lists of vocabulary and grammar rules, and positive reinforcement (Al-Seghayer, 2014; Chow, 2011;

Faruk, 2013; Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007). These concepts have a relatively limited role in contemporary approaches in language education that are commonly adopted in universities in the inner circle countries, ever since the relevance of behaviorist principles, proposed by Skinner, to language learning was questioned by Chomsky in 1960s and 1970s (Margolis, 1982; Richards &

Rodgers, 2001).

Starting from the midst of the 20th century, behaviorism gained popularity as an evidential approach that operates on a basic stimulus-response connection. This approach is based on the theoretical framework that claims all behaviors are a consequence of external stimuli and can be explained without the need to consider internal mental states or consciousness

(Skinner, 1976). Skinner further elaborated on the connections between the science of behavior with the language of organism/environment interactions. Inspired from Skinner’s perspective,

Rivers (1968) later put great emphasis on the idea that children develop a natural habit to learn the language of their social surroundings whose importance both over language learning and teaching should never be underestimated. Language teaching specialists followed River’s guidelines and integrated the premises of behavioristic model into language teaching approaches and techniques. According to Beavers, Eaglin, Green, Nathan, and Wolfe (2002), this opened a new era in the field of language teaching because the behavioristic model was offering observable and measurable behavioral learning outcomes; performance and practice in an authentic context; instructional strategies to shape desired skills; and reliable skill-based assessment. Overall, it was a revolutionary language teaching approach that was easy-to-manage.

This feature of behaviorism stood out and rapidly made it widespread, specifically in developing countries. However, the qualities of this model in the long term turned out to be a great disadvantage in such countries because cognitive and constructivist theorists, such as Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, disputed many principles of behaviorism believing that children develop knowledge through active participation in their learning (Weegar & Pacis, 2012). The problem was simply because developing countries still tended to keep their behavioristic language-teaching model that massively settled in their institutions even though more pedagogically appropriate language methodologies started to emerge. In the meantime, millions of language learners who have limited language competencies have appeared. These language learners were good at grammar, reading or even writing in general, but they lacked in most cognitive and communicative skills and often could not speak, write or think proficiently in English (Jaworski, 2005).

As might be anticipated, it has become particularly more intimidating and overwhelming for many Chinese and Saudi students to integrate themselves into new practices in the ESL context in a U.S. university after practicing language learning based on behaviorist principles in their home country for a minimum of five years (Al-Seghayer, 2014; Chow, 2011; Faruk, 2013;

Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007). Actually, when Chinese and Saudi students begin to study in an

ESL center in the United States, they often experience a language shock or a form of methodological confusion due to the radical differences in language teaching methods and approaches (Fan, 2010; Meyer, 2000). According to Al-Seghayer (2014) and Zhu and Flaitz

(2005), learners from such expanding circle countries are unable to express themselves in

English no matter how much they struggle to use the language due to the pervasive use of language teaching methodologies, which are originated in behaviorism, and due to the limited

6 exposure of the target language in the natural communication context. Once they are exposed to a relatively more student-oriented language instruction, massive differences in language methodologies transform the language learning process into a quite intimidating experience.

Final and perhaps the most severe challenge for these students is that they cannot put their language learning habits aside while striving for mastering language skills in a relatively short period of time (Al-Seghayer, 2014; Chow & Marcus, 2009; Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007).

Broadly speaking, study or learning habits typically denotes study routines, including frequency of studying sessions, review of the material, self-testing, rehearsal of learned material, and studying in a conducive environment (Crede & Kuncel, 2008). Considering the length of language education in the home country, varying between 6 to 10 years for both Chinese and

Saudi students, it can be difficult to change their studying habits and to embrace the new style of learning. Undoubtedly, the transitional period from traditional teaching methods to learner- centered approaches largely determines their motivations, and hence, the pace of acquiring language skills (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Othman & Shuqair, 2013).

Reasons for Increasing Numbers of International Students

As stated in the earlier section, Chinese and Saudi students need to face many challenges in universities in the United States. Ironically, according to the statistics from the Open Doors report on International Educational Exchange by Institute of International Education (IIE)

(2017), the number of international students from these countries is consistently increasing every year. Several reasons motivate students in China and Saudi Arabia to go abroad to study English as a second language. The first and most important reason is that these countries are experiencing dramatic changes in particular student populations. For example, there is a population boom in the age group 10-24 in China, as highlighted in statistics of The World Youth Report (PRB,

2013). The report indicates that there are 299.1 million potential students in China with an average 82% enrollment in secondary schools between 2005 and 2013. However, only 60% could enroll in a university program offered in the 2,263 universities in China (PRB, 2013).

These numbers simply show that there is a potential 40%, almost equal to 120 million students, possibly looking for an educational opportunity abroad.

As for the Saudi students, which constitute the second largest international student population worldwide, statistics regarding demographic changes in post-secondary school-age students are as significant as in China (PRB, 2013). According to the same World Youth

Statistics by Population Reference Bureau, the youth population (ages between 10-24) is more than 60 million in all Arab-speaking countries as of 2013, and less than 40% of this population could register in a university program between 2005 and 2011. In these circumstances, universities in the United States appear to be viable alternatives for those who could not have the chance to enroll in any academic programs in their native countries (U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement Office, 2014).

Secondly, despite the fact that the governments of both China, including Taiwan, and

Arab-speaking countries have allocated huge budgets for education, the school system in these countries still suffers from poorly trained teachers, low retention rates for teachers, and lack of rigorous standards despite huge budgets (Abir, 1986; Alharbi, 2015; Bashshur, 2004; Roy,

1992). Of all those countries, Saudi Arabia has specifically invested in education at an unprecedented rate, which is equal to more than a quarter of its national budget (Faruk, 2013).

However, only 40% of 7.6 million students could enroll in a university program in Saudi Arabia, and the rest, 60%, considered alternatives for jobs in Saudi Arabia or education abroad. There are also serious concerns about the quality of language teaching in both China (Wenfeng & Gao,

2008) and Saudi Arabia (Ashraf, 2018). Despite massive investments, academic fields like ESL in these countries still suffer from several factors affecting its overall quality. In Saudi Arabia, for example, Al-Seghayer (2014) noted that those factors primarily included beliefs about religion and the place of English in Saudi community. He listed a serious of curricular issues referring to limited time for instruction, the unavailability and inadequate diverse, selective, and appropriate teaching resources, and more importantly, teaching and learning standards. He also underlined pedagogical constraints (English teaching preparation programs, teaching methods), and administrative constraints (centralization of language education, the lack of establishing partnerships with both local and abroad training centers, and the lack of the EFL comprehensive strategic plan). Al-Seghayer (2014) and Faruk (2013) strongly agreed that these were the main factors, which could negatively influence the effectiveness of English teaching preparation programs, language-teacher training programs, and choice/implementation of most recent language teaching methods in Saudi universities. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that language-teaching methods in Saudi Arabia are still rooted in outdated practices like Audio-

Lingual Method with little hope of any change (Faruk, 2013).

Audio-Lingual Method as an easy-to-administer approach is a style of teaching foreign languages whose framework is built on behaviorism. This approach uses repetitive skill practice, deductive grammar analysis, and mechanical language drills. Compared to cognitive and constructive methodologies, which require more extensive teacher training, resources, and organization, Audio-Lingual Method has been a more feasible alternative because it was much easier to assess learners’ progress and design language drills, materials and in-class activities

(Hamilton, 1966). Eventually, this method gained great popularity in Arab communities. It is also interesting to see that almost all the factors mentioned above exist in China despite major

9 social, traditional and religious differences (Ma & Kelly, 2009; Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). Language education in China is similarly stuck in methodological dilemmas and debates.

Finally, there are some additional reasons why universities in the United States have become increasingly popular among Chinese and Saudi students. To begin with, English has become a universal language, a kind of lingua franca, serving as a powerful means of communication. It can simply function as a medium between different linguistic groups in a multilingual speech community because communication through English is accepted as one of the qualities that global citizens prioritize and share (Holmes, 1997). For many Chinese and

Saudi students, the English language is a way to express themselves in another language and to achieve a sense of global belonging, higher income, and better life standards (Al-Seghayer, 2014;

Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). Today, sixty percent of the current world population is multilingual; therefore, bilingualism or multilingualism has become a norm and not an exception in order to achieve a global identity (Cruz-Ferreira, 2010; De Jong, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). For that very reason, learning English has become an increasingly popular trend that is motivating thousands of Chinese and Saudi students to go abroad. Of course, the reasons and priorities may vary, but their academic efforts are quite similar in the ESL context in spite of having some issues while learning English. This was the first connection motivating the researcher to believe that it would be promising to reveal some insights about these two student groups investigating their academic experiences throughout the language learning process. The next motivation for the researcher was about the number of studies. Only few studies were specifically dedicated to the academic experiences of these non-matriculated student groups to explore their perceptions, and there are still numerous questions that need to be answered.

Research about International Students’ Experiences in Different Areas

To date, there has been significant research addressing academic experiences of international students at undergraduate and graduate levels (Byrne, 2001; Campbell & Li, 2008;

Cheng & Erben, 2012; Donald & Denison, 1996; Glass, 2012; Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002;

Rautopuro & Vaisanen, 2000; Ward and Masgoret, 2004). This body of research has concentrated on the areas where international students face challenges, and greatly contributed to our understanding about what experiences international students specifically undergo during their studies in the United States and other inner-circle countries. For example, some recent studies have addressed international students’ experiences through their interactions with the

English-speaking environment socially, psychologically and academically (Arthur, 2008;

Macrae, 2002; Popadiuk & Arthur, 2004; Singaravelu & Pope, 2007; Zhou et al., 2008); their specific educational experiences, learning, development, and perception of campus climate (Al-

Sharideh & Goe, 1998; Arthur & Flynn, 2011; Glass, 2012; Halualani, Chitgopekar, Morrison, &

Dodge, 2004; King & Baxter, 2005; Nieto & Booth, 2010; Peterson, Briggs, Dreasher, Horner, &

Nelson, 1999; Quintrell & Westwood, 1994; Trice, 2003); and general adaptation experiences and problems of international students upon arrival in a foreign country (Campbell & Li, 2007;

Marr, 2005; Sakthivel, 2003; Ward & Kennedy, 1993; Zhang & Mi, 2010). Other studies indicated that problems could arise for international students based on differences in intercultural and interpersonal communication and the cultural distance of the communication patterns of the participants (Arthur, 2008; Olivas & Lee, 2006; Popadiuk & Arthur, 2004; Singaravelu & Pope,

2007; Zhai, 2002; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001).

There are also numerous studies on international students’ difficulties with acculturation to the U.S. educational system and culture (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998), the interactions between

11 culturally diverse students (Montgomery, 2009; Quintrell & Westwood, 1994; Trice, 2003), and culture shock (Gass & Selinker, 1994; Nieto & Booth, 2010). Of course, research on the factors that influence international students’ academic performance (Wei Chen & Duanmu, 2009) and language-related problems in academic studies (Moores & Popadiuk, 2011; Zhang & Mi, 2010) has certainly contributed to our understanding of the ways American universities can create positive learning environments for international students. However, few studies have examined whether specific educational experiences may be positively associated with learning and development for Chinese and Saudi language learners in an ESL context in the United States.

Other studies addressed experiences about language difficulties of international students

(Bradley & Bradley, 1984; Bretag, Horrocks, & Smith, 2002; Hellsten & Prescott, 2004;

Robertson et al., 2000; Sakthivel, 2003). It seems that language-learning difficulties are among other areas that more researchers concentrated as the population of international students was constantly growing. The underlying reason behind this movement is that language learning is a critical area in the educational, cultural and social development of international students in the target community (Hoff & Paige, 2008; Lange & Paige, 2003; Paige, Jorstad, Siaya, Klein, &

Colby, 2003). It is often the case that students who have inadequate language skills would have problems developing educationally and might experience difficulty with listening, understanding lectures and examples in a class, reading, oral communication, class participation, writing in different styles and with critical analysis (Andrade, 2009; Berman & Cheng, 2001; Mavondo,

Tsarenko, & Gabbott, 2004). This study aims to add new perspectives to the body of research by triangulation through various narratives in and outside the class from Chinese and Saudi students, their language teachers and administrators.

Some research that focused on matriculated international students proved that the majority was having difficulties understanding lectures because they could not keep up with the pace of the professors’ speaking, or had limited understanding due to colloquial language including vocabulary or humor, or due to unfamiliar cultural, political, or historical references

(Holmes, 2004; Lee, 1997; Lewthwaite, 1996; Senyshyn, Warford, & Zhan, 2000). Studies that specifically addressed matriculated international students explored passive language skills

(Cheng, Myles & Curtis, 2004; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000), affective factors including lack of confidence using English (Lewthwaite, 1996; Senyshyn, Warford, & Zhan,

2000; Tompson & Tompson, 1996), anxiety about making errors and using language (Cheng,

Myles & Curtis, 2004; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Jacob & Greggo, 2001; MacIntyre &

Gardner, 1989, 1991a, 1991b; Young, 1986), the linguistic weaknesses in undergraduate classes

(Ramburuth, 2001), tendencies for studying with peers from the same cultures (Tompson &

Tompson, 1996), emotional and psychological problems (Kaczmarek et al., 1994; Robertson et al., 2000). As these studies have indicated, there are no studies that specifically concentrated on

Chinese and Saudi student populations as non-matriculated groups individually and comparatively during their first year in an ESL center in the United States while acquiring language skills required to study a major at undergraduate or graduate level.

Of all the studies in this section, only one by Hanassab and Tidwell (2002) approximated my current research in scope and research focuses. This study evaluated the needs of international students in a university and examined their overall experiences since entering an institution of higher learning in the United States. However, it approached the entire international student population from a broader perspective and dealt with their progressive experiences in different academic contexts starting from the ESL Center to undergraduate programs. Finally,

13 another relevant research study on international students’ experiences referred to the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition at the host university and similar practices in the home country (Mehra, 2004). Mehra asserted that studying international students could bring needed cultural perspectives to university programs that lacked a broad global, cultural approach to understanding the learning needs of students. In the study, participants tended to refer to their past cultural, academic, and work experiences in order to formulate their learning strategies in the future. Mehra’s study differed from my dissertation research because it only considered graduate students from Thailand, China, Korea, India, and Japan studying at an American university. The second largest international student population in American universities, which is the Saudi group, was not included in this study. Overall, my dissertation aims to explore all these connections in order to have rich descriptions regarding the perceptions of these international language learners, and eventually to reveal some insights that could contribute to a better understanding of their needs, expectations, fears, and motives.

Relevant Researcher Background

With the help of growing diversity, the academic environment on campuses has become a medium through which many intercultural and intergroup interactions occur (Yefanova, Baird, &

Montgomery, 2015). However, much of the research about the experiences of international students points to a low satisfaction rate with interactions with American students (Ruble &

Zhang, 2011; Imamura, Zhang, & Shim, 2012). Indeed, even after they begin to communicate with Americans on campus, most of the international students still tend to spend more time with friends from their nation. When looking around on campus, for example, it is likely to see groups of international students that look like small cultural islets. Even in the classroom context, this structural grouping can be observed. As far as I observed on campus, Chinese and Saudi students

14 mostly sit together in and outside the class and participate in most activities supporting each other. Primary factor that motivated me to concentrate on Chinese and Saudi students was based on such observations that took place in and around the ESL Center. During my teaching experiences and collegial journey in the doctorate program, I met hundreds of international students in different contexts and occasions, and I was actively involved in numerous cultural activities they organized. On- and off-campus, I had multiple chances to observe closely their language learning tendencies and cultural behaviors that might be peculiar to their home community. When they arrive in groups, for example, students may feel more competent and confident about adapting to the new environment. Dornyei (2009) believes that individuals in cohesive cultural groups with appropriate group norms create the basic motivational conditions for learning. In cohesive groups with insufficient language skills, however, learning from each other could be very limited since language learners still differ from each other in a variety of ways, and these differences can have a significant impact on what works for any given student when it comes to language learning (Snow & Campbell, 2017).

My initial inspirations for this research came from my observations above and later from a co-authored article written with Dr. Wendy Kasten (Kasten & Dagistan, 2014). This study specifically underlined the value of interaction with Americans in a social context outside the class. It also noted that the distance between international students and the Americans could determine the effectiveness of language progress. If Chinese and Saudi students are having language learning problems at U.S. universities, they may stem from their distance to the

Americans in and around the ESL center. Having gone through similar language learning paths with Chinese and Saudi students, I also felt inclined to explore what these student groups were actually experiencing in the United States.

From my own experience, I first faced with the challenges of learning English at the age of 21 after working in a military factory for six years. Later, I had my B.A. degree in English

Language Teaching and M.A. degree in Linguistics in Turkish universities. When I started to teach students from diverse communities in ESL centers at different schools, I met even more challenges. Throughout my teaching career, I had multiple dialogues and observations about language-learning tendencies of international students. At times, I faced the fact that teaching even a basic topic could be a very challenging task to achieve for language instructors. Of course, language teachers were not only supposed to make a topic comprehensive enough for all in the class but also needed to address unique learner profiles whose language learning styles and strategies were shaped by their prior language learning experiences in their home countries, individual learning preferences, and cognitive engagement. For most language instructors who are teaching in a multicultural context, there are questions to be answered about the reasons why students from a certain country tend to learn a new language in similar ways or why they tend to show resistance to some in-class activities. During my sixteen years of teaching experience, many more questions about students’ learning styles or preferences emerged while teaching specifically Chinese and Saudi students. In a sense, my past teaching experiences also provided me with motives to research this topic. In this research, I am hoping to get some plausible answers that might contribute to my and other language instructors’ language teaching practices.

Considering my identity as the researcher, readers of this current study may at first assume that there would be biased interpretations or judgments throughout the research. This assumption is valid to a certain extent because the researcher’s background, its relevance to the research context and his personal/professional beliefs and values are reflected not only in the choice of methodology and interpretation of findings, but also in the choice of a research topic.

In contrast to traditional positivist research paradigm, what we are studying often has no personal significance (Mehra, 2001). Mehra believes (2002) that what we believe in determines what we want to study in qualitative studies, or as Scheurich (1994) remarks, who we are determines, to a large extent, what we want to study. Then, one's historical position, class, race, gender, religion, experiences, and beliefs naturally interact and influence, limit and constrain production of knowledge. In addition to social and historical position, a researcher's evolving self throughout his or her academic career also influences the selection of a research topic or even interpretations

(Mehra, 2001). All these factors should be viewed as natural reflections of the researcher’s self.

Ideally, bias should be kept at a tolerable level that would not impact the perceptions of the reader and invade the text. However, there is always a risk of bias, and to control that risk, I employed some bracketing techniques during the data analysis to limit bias.

Rationale

Here, the rationale section will present the three central components of this study: The purpose of the study, research questions, and the significance of the study, respectively.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate how non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students perceive their language development in an ESL context in a U.S. university.

Specifically, it examines how each group perceives differences in language teaching methods and the language-learning environment between their native communities and the United States during the language learning process. The study also seeks to answer the question of how those differences influence the nature and pace of each group’s language speaking and overall English language development. Since Chinese and Saudi students have quite distinctive cultural

17 background but similar language learning experiences, this research will delve into how their perceptions compare in regards to their English education.

Research Questions

1. How do non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students view their language learning

experiences in an ESL (English as a Second Language) context in a U.S. university?

2. How do the experiences and perceptions of Chinese and Saudi students compare with

regard to their English language education?

3. What insights can be gained from students, teachers, and administrators about

international student experiences that might enhance the quality of language instruction

in an ESL context in a U.S. University?

The Significance of the Study

This study investigates how Chinese and Saudi students perceive their language learning experiences from a broader perspective in English as a Second language in a university intensive

English program. As noted earlier, previous studies have approached international students as one single population or addressed only one area of experience (academic, social, cultural), academic (matriculated, undergraduate or graduate students) or linguistic (Chinese, Arab- or

Spanish-speaking students) group. Little research, however, has been conducted to examine the experiences of non-matriculated students, specifically Chinese and Saudi students, in regards to their language learning experiences in an ESL context.

Assumptions and Limitations of the Study

The study is using self-report questionnaires to gather data, and it assumes that participants are honest. It also assumes that participants in the American university are typical and will respond similarly to students elsewhere. The study is not a nationwide study, and the

18 participants are limited to the Chinese and Saudi students, language instructors and administrators in the ESL Center. Finally, the sample size is small because it explores non- matriculated student population in the ESL Center.

Summary

The study took place in an American university located in northeastern Ohio, where the profile of the student population has become and continues to be increasingly diverse (IIE,

2017). Despite the academic, financial and cultural benefits that the presence of this diverse population brings to campuses, there are also some serious problems from which these students suffer. These problems, based on the researcher’s observations, included adaptation problems, lack of linguistic and communicative competencies, and limited academic progress. Of course,

ESL centers play an important role in addressing these problems and helping international students achieve a smooth cultural, linguistic, communicative and academic transition in a university context. However, the fundamental differences in language education methods and approaches between America and China/Saudi Arabia pose more advantages or challenges than assumed. This study aims to unveil those areas of difficulty through Chinese and Saudi students’ perceptions in connection with their language learning experiences. It is hoped that the analysis of those experiences will reveal some insights that can contribute to the overall quality of language instruction in ESL centers in the United States by raising the awareness among educators and administrators who work with diverse students, and more importantly, help learners become more active participants individually, socially, and academically in the university community.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter will present details including the reasons why international students choose to study in the United States, details about language education in China and Arab countries, challenges of studying abroad, cultural aspects of language learning and socialization problems during the language learning experience. Finally, a detailed comparison of traditional versus constructivist language teaching approaches will be made.

The Reasons Why International Students Choose to Study in the United States

The United States has been a major recipient of international students since 1960s, and this has raised many questions in the last few decades that revolve around what aspects of education being offered in U.S. schools are the most crucial to international students (Hayden, 2000;

Buckley et al., 2006; Hazen & Alberts, 2006). Hazen and Alberts (2006) believe that a variety of professional, societal, and personal factors influence students in the decision-making process. Of course, individuals have different reasons and priorities that can be linked to their educational and sociocultural backgrounds. These vary in nature and include better educational opportunities, better funding possibilities, global awareness, more academic freedom or democracy in the educational context, desire to experience a new popular culture or even family motivation

(Naffziger, Bott & Mueller, 2008; Kasravi, 2009). At the graduate levels, especially, the majority of international students expect that a degree obtained in the United States would increase chances to find a good job in their home country. Almost three-quarters of respondents in Hazen

20 and Alberts’ study (2006) report that better educational opportunities had influenced their decision to study abroad.

Even though studying in the United States may turn out to be an overwhelming experience, most international students tend to meet and overcome cultural challenges thanks to the services and characteristics peculiar to the U.S. educational system (Murray & Christison, 2011). For example, many international students prefer U.S. schools because they have more freedom to make use of multiple models or teaching strategies; more student-oriented instruction; and more funds to use for enhanced teaching (Smithee, Greenblat & Eland, 2004). Similarly, Murray and

Christison (2011) believe that these educational features become more convincing when compared to the educational qualities international students have experienced in their native cultures.

According to Mitlin & Satterthwaite (2013), there are educational differences between schools in America and developing countries, or the Global South, a term emerging in transnational and postcolonial studies to refer to what may also be called the Third World or developing countries. These differences are highlighted in The European Commission report

(2010), titled More and Better Education in Developing Countries, which specifically lists the areas in education that require immediate attention. The report points out that the challenge of access and quality, the existence of an enabling environment and a relevant curriculum, the quality of teachers, teacher education and school management, and above all, the accountability of governments about education are all critical areas which developing countries should consider improving. The report also highlights the challenges in the home cultures, including hierarchical educational structure strictly governed by a ministry of education, non-inclusive education, adherence to standardized management principles and teacher-centered instruction. This list

21 reflects negative features of education in their home cultures and certainly motivates students from China and Saudi Arabia to look for alternatives that might offer better options for studying

(The Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000). Another reason that stands out in the report is that U.S. schools offer a natural linguistic context where language learners are continuously exposed to the target language, even though that input can happen randomly. The language input in daily interactions helps international students achieve a smoother cultural and academic transition (Murray & Christison, 2011). The social context outside the classroom can contribute to the development of language learners because the role of interaction is critical throughout the process of acquiring a new language (Murray & Christison, 2011). China and

Saudi Arabia certainly lacks that social context involving language learners in a genuinely authentic language practice.

The place of interaction in the learning process can be theoretically explained by the work of Vygotsky (1978). As an advocate of social interactionism, he emphasized the important role of language and communication in the general development of an individual, positing that social interaction is a critical element of the learning process. He proposed a concept to explain this issue: the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD refers to the difference between a learner's ability to perform a task independently versus learning with guidance (Vygotsky, 1978).

Learners construct the new language through socially mediated interaction with more experienced peers. This idea represents a critically important perspective in my current study as it underlines the place of communication for Chinese and Saudi students with their American peers in the same university context while learning the new language. Moreover, when learners are involved in authentic communication, their natural strategies for language acquisition, primarily their innate capacity to acquire a new language, will be used (Nunan, 1991). This is

22 another important connection, which Nunan persistently proposed about the need for a constant attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom to enable individuals to achieve linguistic development through in-society practice. Eventually, most international students achieve linguistic development, social acceptance, and integration on different levels of society because U.S. universities simply offer what the schools in the home countries lack. Of course, the degree Chinese and Saudi students have attained helps determine whether they will stay in the United States or go back to their home country. Despite the outer circle advantages, personal, societal, and more importantly, linguistic factors can dominate the experience resulting in critical challenges commonly faced by international learners.

Finally, changing demographics in developing countries is another factor that motivates students to go abroad. Kapur and Crowley (2008) note that higher education is an area of misplaced priorities and inadequate public expenditures in China and Arab countries. They also add that, in recent decades, there has been a gap between the enrollments in the institutions and the number of students in expanding circle countries due to a significant shifting in demographics, especially in terms of younger age groups seeking alternatives to higher education. The latest World Youth Report (PRB, 2013) explored the levels of demographic changes in those countries and highlighted the number of individuals under 29 going abroad for professional and educational needs. According to the report, until 2013, 45 million individuals under 29 have migrated from their home country to another country for better jobs and education. Similarly, Altbach (2006) highlighted the fact that the number of international students increased slightly to 1.3 million in 1990, tripled to 3.4 million by 2009, and is expected to grow to 8 million by 2020.

The reason behind that massive movement between countries is that there are limited resources/funds, teaching force, space or educational opportunities for students in countries where drastic demographic changes have been experienced (Glewwe & Kremer, 2005).

According to Project Atlas (2016), which explored Top Host Destinations in 2016, universities in the United States seem to have accomplished only a small portion of the potential enrollments worldwide (25%). The rest of the enrollments were shared by some other countries (United

Kingdom (12%), China (10%), France (8%), Australia (7%), Russia (7%), Canada (7%),

Germany (6%) and other (19%)). The Project Atlas also highlighted that countries like Russia,

Canada, Japan, and the Philippines dramatically managed higher international student ratio in their universities when compared to the United States.

Language Education in Chinese and Arab countries

English has become a form of lingua franca in many countries today, a term that refers to a language that is used as a medium of communication between people or groups of people who speak different native languages (Gnutzmann, 2000). In order for these two largest communities to connect with the wider world beyond China or the Arabic speaking world, they are investing a substantive amount of resources that might support the development of English language education in their communities (Al-Seghayer, 2012; Faruk, 2013). Thanks to those investments, the role of English in these countries evolved even though the foreign language policies were different. For example, it was and is still somewhat political in the case of China and in contrast, it is a religious and political situation in the case of Saudi Arabia (Faruk, 2014). In China,

English language learning was encouraged by the national ministry of education in order for the

Chinese government to keep track of the progress nationwide (Pan, 2011). On the other hand, the

English language has been encouraged by Hadith in Saudi Arabia, who is known as the spiritual

24 guide for the Muslims, to raise awareness within the Arab community against the foreigners

(Elyas & Picard, 2010). Of course, these understandings have drastically changed since they first emerged due to constant international and intercultural transactions. Both communities appear to have prioritized English as a means of communication that might help them improve their national prosperity.

Language Education in China

The presence of English language in China dates back to the seventeenth century. It was first used in trading arrangements with English speaking countries, and since then, English has gained great importance in social, economic and educational movements (Qu, 2007). According to Qu, China’s first contact with the English language occurred between the Chinese and English traders in the 1600s, but the emphasis of English education only emerged after 1979 when the cultural revolution ended and China adopted the Open Door Policy. That was the period which the United States and China established strong diplomatic ties.

This period represents a transitional period for English language teaching in China since it was seen as a tool to renew links with the West (1971-6), and in later stages of the Cultural

Revolution, to modernize the Chinese community (1977-90) and to achieve international stature

(1991-present) (Lam, 2002). Eventually, a massive movement towards English language teaching started. The estimated number of English learners in China was over 200 million after the millennium, and this is still rising because another 50 million at primary and secondary education level are added to the list in the next five years (Qu, 2007).

Of course, this fast growth in the student population brought some improvements and problems as well. The way language teaching in China gained popularity triggered widespread criticisms on the grounds that Chinese schools are exclusively evaluated and financed based on

25 test results (Ma & Kelly, 2009). This means that language teaching is geared towards the skill- oriented testing and rote memorization in both written and spoken language as the fundamental learning strategy. For Ma and Kelly (2009), the reason why this language teaching perspective has become so common can be related to the Chinese way of learning which has been implemented for centuries. English in this approach is perceived to be of little use, which can be reflected in standardized language testing on different grade levels. These tests contain only questions about the written content (80%) and listening (20%), and speaking is entirely excluded in language tests (Bolton & Graddol, 2012).

Despite these limitations in skill-oriented teaching and testing of English, China made progress in terms of teacher education and language materials. However, problems about language teaching policies and programs were so persistent that they constantly reduced the effectiveness of language teaching efforts (Lin, 2002). Even though there are some variations in the public school system in different provinces, China has embraced a state-run public school system, which is strictly controlled by the Ministry of Education (Ma & Kelly, 2009). All citizens must complete the nine-year compulsory education funded by the government. This basic education includes six years of primary and three years of middle school education.

English as a foreign language is generally introduced in about the third grade, in other words, at the age of 10 (Ma & Kelly, 2009). When China's Ministry of Education issued a foreign language policy in 2001, it mandated that primary school students would start to learn English as a compulsory subject in the third grade. Although this policy aimed to achieve a country-wide improvement in language instruction, the majority of schools in rural areas failed to meet policy requirements and are still struggling to achieve them (Hu, 2007). According to Nunan (2003), curricular decisions regarding teaching English to young learners in China were made based on

26 the assumption that younger is better, and such decisions were made in the light of some learning and acquisition theories. According to Lin (2002), China built a solid foundation to better

English teaching on all grade levels, and substantial progress was made in terms of personnel training, textbooks, courses, fieldwork, teaching method and teachers. On the other hand, Lin advocated there were still some critical points that required further attention. These included the use of Chinese in language teaching, the curricular inconsistency between middle school and college levels, one language program-fits-all policy, overemphasizing specific language skills, the quality and the quantity of language teachers, lack of research in this field, and more importantly, grammar/mechanics tests and a strict skill evaluation system which scaffolded learners’ progress in a very limited way.

To fix the issues and better the current situation in language teaching, increasing numbers of education specialists in China have been working on critical studies. Of all those experts, Li

(2010) views teachers as the most critical factor while improving the current education system.

The perspectives of English teachers in general and the language curriculum, which they are supposed to implement in particular, have been neglected in language education policies (Li,

2010). Li also notes that the problem stems from a discrepancy between what national English language policy dictates and how language teachers implement and interpret those predetermined policies at the local level in Chinese schools. According to Lu (2003) and Shu (2004), the reason for that discrepancy Li describes stems from the imposed language policy that has created educational inequality between some rural and urban schools due to various constraints. For Hu

(2005), the policy seems to be a poorly deliberated one even though China’s Ministry of

Education released the policy in the hope of addressing the gap between the increasing demands for English raised by different prospects, such as winning the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and

27 joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. He also believes that the new policy aimed to remedy the unsatisfactory outcome of ELT (English Language Teaching) reforms at the secondary school level in 1990s, but it was just a temporary effort.

In a recent article about the reforms, Hu and McKay (2012) concentrates on a series of reforms introduced by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission to monitor closely the skill- based progress in English in the last decade. In these reforms, the weight of the English ability test is reduced from 150 down to 100 out of a maximum of 750 in The National College

Entrance Examination, or Gaokao, which is viewed as a fundamental institution in contemporary

China and as a major stressor and potential turning point in any Chinese student's career (Heger,

2017). Reforms in Gaokao also promises the weight of the Chinese ability test will gradually increase from 150 up to 180 until 2016 (Hu & McKay, 2012). The reforms that the Beijing

Municipal Education has put into practice have created a continuous change in the balance between Chinese and English on different levels of education. It appears that China is going through a series of transitional periods thanks to numerous critical decisions in language education policies. Overall, interest in English in China reflects English language is now helping

China reshape globalization, and Chinese students abroad is a significant part of this effort (Wei

& Su, 2012).

Language education in Arab countries

China and Arab countries are poles apart regarding politics, culture, religion, and language; however, both sides seemed to have embraced almost the same path in English language education (Faruk, 2014). As in China, the Ministry of Education administers all schooling systems in Saudi Arabia, but there is a great emphasis on religious content at all educational levels. For example, nine periods a week are currently dedicated to religious studies

28 at the elementary/primary school level, whereas a total of twelve periods are allocated for math, science, geography, history, and physical education in Saudi schools (House, 2012). More importantly, foreign language training is minimal at early grade levels.

Most Arab countries allocate huge budgets for the school system, but they still suffer from poorly trained teachers, low retention rates, lack of rigorous standards, weak scientific and technical instruction (Alhamad, 2018). In recent educational policies, some radical decisions have been made to address these areas and to encourage a more active integration of English into curricular structures in different types of schools. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, Article 50 of the

Educational Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia states that students should learn at least one foreign language so that they may interact with people of other cultures to contribute to the message of Islam and serving humanity (Al-Seghayer, 2012). According to Al-Seghayer (2012), even though the article seems indirectly related, it encourages English teaching in Saudi schools to a great extent, where the learners’ ability to communicate with international language users ranks as a priority.

In Saudi Arabia there are opposing views about the issues in English education beyond the emphasis given by the Saudi Ministry of Education. According to Al-Seghayer (2012), the country’s political stance is a critical issue that presents obstacles to integrate English into social life and schooling. He claims that except for various sectors, English has not been widely accepted as a means of communication since it does not fulfill certain functions in intranational communication, or on administrative levels because standard Arabic was also a lingua franca. On the other hand, Faruk (2014) believes that this perspective is changing due to the massive influx of a foreign workforce, media and companies in Saudi Arabia. He also notes that Saudis have an ever-evolving positive attitude towards English education, and the majority believe that English

29 is vital to the country’s future and prosperity. Perhaps for this very reason, English is the only foreign language in all Saudi public schools (Faruk, 2014).

Regardless of legal regulations, educational investments, attitudinal changes, and religious leniency toward English education, the overall quality of language teaching and proficiency level of students are down below the expectations of language professionals.

According to Al-Seghayer (2014), there are more powerful factors affecting the quality of

English education, such as strict religious rules, components of the curriculum, and pedagogical and administrative constraints. As in language education in China, language curriculum prioritizes written forms of language and vocabulary, and little or no emphasis is given to speaking and listening skills (Al-Nasser, 2015).

Compared to other Arab countries and even China, Saudi Arabia is investing in education at an unprecedented rate, which is equal to more than a quarter of its national budget. As a result, there is an institutional development clearly seen nationwide. For example, there is a massive expansion of educational institutions at all levels, and this has led to a stronger emphasis on

English language teaching efforts. Almost all the universities and colleges (over 52, as of 2013) have English departments and English language centers to teach English to the students of other departments including medical, engineering, and other science colleges at least for one semester where English is being used as the medium of instruction (Faruk, 2013). According to Al-

Seghayer (2014), this is a seemingly positive change since most of the religious, educational, pedagogical, political issues, and pedagogical constraints peculiar to the Arab community have not been addressed effectively. These are demoralizing factors in English teaching-learning activities in Saudi Arabia and mostly about the insufficiency of English teaching preparation programs and pertain to English teaching methods. For instance, Saudi language teachers do not

30 possess enough theoretical background knowledge about the barriers of motivation, attitudes, aptitude, and stages of learning. Al-Seghayer (2014) notes that the incompetency of teachers is related to their insufficient knowledge of testing and strategies to teach four basic skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking), grammar, and vocabulary. According to Faruk (2013) and Al-

Seghayer (2014), English teachers in Saudi schools have limited experience in material design, evaluation, adaptation, and implementation. These factors limit the alternative language teaching appoaches in Arab schools down to Audio-Lingual Method that derived from the learning principles of behaviorism, which views learning as a basic stimulus-response reaction (Skinner,

1953; Thorndike, 1905). Inevitably, students in Arab schools are pushed to complete mechanical drills, to memorize grammar rules, and to do monotonous repetition of words and phrases that minimally engage them in the learning process.

When one considers how Arab students are accustomed to learning and practicing

English language in their community, it is not too difficult to imagine why English language learning in the U.S. can be such an extremely daunting experience. The majority of ESL Centers in American universities have adopted a comparatively communicative or student-oriented language teaching approach that is contradictory with the pedagogical and practical principles of behaviorism or Grammar-Translation Method. It may be difficult, however, for Arab students to switch to a new language learning approach in a short time. Language learning difficulties that might stem from methodological differences in combination with the challenges of intercultural experiences in the U.S. may affect the pace and quality of their language learning experience.

Challenges of Studying Abroad

In early stages of their language learning experience in American culture, international students are constantly exposed to many cultural, linguistic and academic challenges. In some

31 cases, the language learning process through such multifaceted input may easily turn out to be a task to complete in order to prove one’s academic potential to peers and family; sometimes it leads to a success story, and sometimes alienation inevitably takes place (Pranata, Foo-Kune &

Rodolfa, 2013). When there are too many unknowns in the target culture about communication style, cultural habits and behaviors, adjustment to that site can turn out to be an overwhelming process that can result in excessive stress (Yusoff & Chelliah, 2010). In a way, all the unknowns can be the source of some psychosomatic symptoms in the form of different health issues

(Tanaka-Matsumi & Chang, 2002). To lower the occurrence of such symptoms, international students tend to stick to their cultural groups because they feel more competent and confident about adapting when they arrive in the new site or move in groups (Choudaha, Orosz & Chang,

2012). Beyond all these factors, fundamental differences between mother tongue and the target language may set learning barriers for students. These problems are presented in numerous studies on second language acquisition and have been elaborated on these.

Many international students in the United States have a predefined purpose in mind: To develop primarily conversational and academic skills in English (Ozturgut & Murphy, 2010).

While acquiring these skills, they face numerous challenges and in later stages of their effort, their expectations can get relatively more professional and interpersonal (NCTE ELL Task

Force, 2006). The most significant challenge these students take on arises from diversity. Foreign students form a great diversity in and around schools where their distinctive cultural profiles create a communication gap between international students and domestic individuals. The gap may create some challenges, and therefore, should be immediately confronted in American schools to avoid more difficult adjustment problems in the later stages of the students’ cultural experience (Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986). Adjustment problems can be related to cultural

32 differences (Fernandez, et al. 2000; Huntley, 1993) and may result in more challenges. For example, Ozturgut and Murphy (2010) assert that if these difficulties are not seen as natural and expected, “international students can isolate themselves and form a stronger shell around their circle of trust” (p. 380). As a result of this tendency, international students, in most cases, tend to form isolated cliques during their cultural immersion and linguistic development. This reaction can be a habitual behavior, a cultural reflex, and a tendency to stay in the safety zone or even a simple personal choice (Salkind, 2008; Steinberg, 2010).

In cultural cliques, language development of international students is much slower than those who actively participate in more social activities in which Americans are involved

(Kinginger, 2004). All those reluctant international students tend to stay in the safety zone provided by cultural cliques in order to reach the ideal language and social proficiency levels at their pace. Ironically, this choice is like a double-edged sword since they feel even harsher social pressure specifically from their families or schools in terms of success (Al-Khairy, 2013;

Dornyei, 2009). Then, it is not surprising to see some English language learners act in similar ways because lack of competencies in English is considered as a sign of academic failure or inferiority that might cause embarrassment and exclusion in many closed communities like

China and Saudi Arabia.

To prove their potential and capabilities, international students feel that they are destined to embark on a more daunting academic journey in a different culture (Fischer, 2012). In a study on challenges that international students face, Glass, Buus, and Braskamp (2013) emphasize the fact that students from China, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia feel more threatened by the diversity in classes than American peers, and that they rate their sense of community

33 significantly lower than American students do, especially when asked to work with others from different cultures.

International students tend to stick to their cultural cliques because some of them may be overwhelmingly challenged by the enormity of the process of learning English in another culture.

Zangari (1999) notes that while trying to communicate, international students might be “bogged down with details, particularly with correctness, and therefore lack the confidence to take advantage of the abundance of opportunities that immersion provides” (p. 1). Of course, this may not be the case for all international students, and it can be a mistake to make such overgeneralizations. Some students may have the inner potential for learning languages and not everyone stays within their own cultural group, while for others, it is a massive assignment to undertake.

Some of the adjustment problems can be simply related to the new academic environment in and outside the classroom (Murray & Christison, 2011; Ozturgut & Murphy, 2010). For example, Cameron and Meade (2002) note that international students have significantly greater difficulties adjusting to academic requirements mainly in the areas of study methods, independent learning, participation, time management, and language skills. Most of these challenges stem from drastically different learning preferences and styles, which is often based on a tendency to put a greater emphasis on accuracy of recall, memorization, as well as a preference for passive learning (Beaver & Tuck, 1998; Purdie, 2000). Passive learning occurs when students are in receptive mode in activities like lectures, Q&A with teacher, reading textbook on topic, and doing a quiz or exam to test topic knowledge. In these activities, students are disengaged and unmotivated.

Cultural Aspects of Language Learning

With the help of cognitivist and constructivist understanding in the last few decades, the definition of language learning has immensely changed, so it is not limited to acquiring only necessary grammatical structures and vocabulary items any more. The new understanding of language views a language not simply as a body of knowledge to be learned but as a social practice in which to participate (Kramsch, 1994; Emmith, Pollock & Komesaroff, 2006). Of course, learning a new language involves learning how to use words, rules and knowledge about language, but the communicative function of language is also a vital part of the social practice in order to communicate with speakers of a language. This is because “language is something that people do in their daily lives and something they use to express, create and interpret meanings and to establish and maintain social and interpersonal relationships” (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2009, p. 16). In other words, language functions as a communicative tool that connects an individual to social life.

Linguists and anthropologists emphasize the fact that the forms and uses of a given language reflect the cultural values of the society in which the language is spoken. Seeing the fact that language is a social practice of meaning-making and interpretation, many TESOL theorists and educators have recently agreed upon a more expanded view of language. Language is considered to be a medium for communication or a way of seeing the world – not simply a subject matter to be studied (Kramsch, 1994; Shohamy, 2007). The inclusion of cultural aspects into language teaching creates a more engaging learning experience for students because they are directed to use language to create and represent meanings, and more importantly, to communicate with others. In foreign language education, it generally appears that the question of culture is often relegated to the end of a language teaching plan (Tang, 1999) even though there

35 is a delicate balance between language learning experience itself and the learner's cultural integration, which Pica (1994) believes is “what troubles teachers, whether they work with students in classrooms far removed from the culture of the language they are learning or with students who are physically immersed in the culture but experientially and psychologically distant from it" (p. 70).

For decades linguistic competence has been considered an educational objective that is prioritized in foreign language instruction. However, it is not enough for learners of a language to be competent in a language (Krasner, 1999). Choudhury (2013) believes that language learners need to be aware, for example, of the culturally appropriate ways to address people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree or disagree with someone. Individuals should know that behaviors and intonation patterns that are commonly accepted in their speech community may be perceived differently by the members of the target language speech community. They need to understand that, in order for communication to be successful, language use must be associated with other culturally appropriate behavior (Hermagustiana, 2010).

Culture has been defined in different ways, but it is centrally viewed as a socially constructed concept whose main components are shared by its members (Hofstede, 1994;

Matsumoto, 1996; Schein, 1984; Spencer-Oatey, 2008). As a fluid concept, it is basically comprised of subjective and objective components (Triandis, 1972). The objective components refer to visible, and tangible elements, such as the language they speak, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, and all the activities and rituals which reflect their daily routine or lifestyle. On the other hand, subjective elements of culture are invisible and less tangible aspects of culture, such as the attitudes people hold, the values they defend, their norms of behavior, and the manner in which they learn the hierarchy of social roles (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2011; Schwartz,

1992; Triandis, 1972). In ideal language instruction, both objective and subjective components should be integrated to actively engage learners in cultural processes because culture can be a fluid concept that can reflect what a society does and thinks, while language is merely a means of how the thought is expressed (Sapir, 1921). Even though numerous definitions have been offered, the place of language in a culture has always been clearly emphasized, as in the following definition of Schein:

Culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. (1984, p. 3)

Clearly, language is more than just a means of communication (Schein, 1984). It has the power to influence the culture and thought processes as well. That is why, early anthropological studies regarded language as a form of cultural behavior. Sapir (1921), for example, believes that the cultural environment that people grow up in has strong effects on how they interpret the world around them. During the first four decades of the 20th century, American linguists and anthropologists viewed language as being more important than it actually is in shaping our perception of reality. This was the central argument of Sapir and his student Whorf, who asserted that language predetermines what we see in the world around us. They strongly agreed that language functions like a lens through which we see the real world and only in the categories of our language (Carroll, 1956; Mandelbaum, 1983). This standpoint advocates that language determines thought and how a person sees the world. While a person is learning another language, he comes under its influence. He starts looking through the critical lens of the language he is acquiring. This progressive interaction is known as Linguistic Determinism.

Linguistic determinism is the idea that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception (Lee, 1996). The term implies that people of different languages have different thought processes, and Hickmann (2000) asserts that bilingualism is impossible due to thought processes being dedicated to only one language. Since this is quite a contradictory supposition involving many language acquisition principles, the hypothesis of linguistic determinism is today commonly agreed to be false (Ahearn, 2011).

On the other hand, linguistic relativity, which is popularly known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, is a form of linguistic determinism, which argues that individuals experience the world based on the structure of the language they habitually use (D'Andrade, 1995). Linguistic

Relativity basically presents the assumption that one’s language shapes one’s view of reality. It is a mold theory, which views “language as a mold regarding which thought categories are cast”

(Chandler, 2002, p.1). More basically, it states that thought is cast from language - what you think or see is based on the features peculiar to the language you speak. This is an interesting connection because in the field of foreign language teaching, one aspect that occasionally emerges as a topic of discussion is the relationship between knowledge of a foreign language and the understanding of the culture in which the language is spoken. The rationale behind detailing the history on language theories is that all theories presented here will be used as viewpoints with which some findings in this study can be explained better. Instead of sticking to one theory, the researcher preferred to present a variety of thoughts to reveal multifaceted connections and create a holistic understanding of the nature of Chinese and Arab students’ language learning experiences.

Socialization Problems during the Language Learning Experience

While the acquisition of a second language is addressed by linguists and psychologists, little research has been conducted on the process of international students’ acquisition of a new culture. And yet, it is held by many ESL teachers that the difficulties of learning the target culture surpass even the difficulties of learning English as the target language (Disman, 1982).

Schumann (1981) asserts that unless they overcome language and culture shock, and unless they have proper motivation and ego-permeability, international students may not fully acculturate and hence will not acquire the second language as expected. Ego-permeability is an important concept here since it reflects the idea that one is more able to tune into another culture if one is less strict about one's own. To support their cultural and linguistic integration, schools may provide the learners with a multidimensional learning environment as a secondary socialization context. Schools often offer a learning environment where individuals are often introduced to the new ideas and values that are differed from those that they acquired at home (Cushner,

McCleland, & Safford, 2011). These educators believe that “the purpose of education is to liberate individuals from the narrow confines of their primary socialization – in a sense – to expand their cultural identities” (p. 90).

For this reason, language learning as a crucial component of socialization cannot be solely limited to linguistic development. In order to meet the socialization needs of language learners, communicative language teaching methodologies, for instance, concentrate on the cultural aspect of language instruction, specifically on the needs and desires of their learners as well as the connection with the language as it is taught in their class and as it is used outside the classroom (Nunan, 1991). Therefore, any teaching practice that helps students develop their communicative competence in an authentic context is seen as an acceptable and beneficial form

39 of instruction. In a sense, communicative methodology approaches communication from a constructivist perspective and claims that culture in and outside the classroom contexts surrounds the international students and may speed up or slow down their immersion into the environments

(Savignon, 2007). Regardless of their cultural differences, all international students have the capacity to learn a second language successfully according to Horn and Kojaku (2001).

However, students will be more responsive to the instruction that is adapted for culturally diverse backgrounds (Pewewardy & Hammer 2003; Kambutu & Thompson, 2005). That is why, teachers should prioritize recognizing the extent to which different cultural and home experiences affect an individual’s behavior, language use, and interpersonal skills (McLaughlin,

1992).

Standardized assessment principles are still commonly used in many language schools in addressing the general concept of language evaluation. Many educators embrace a deficit- oriented model of instruction, which is based on the perspective that a student fails in school due to poor intellectual abilities, linguistic difficulties, low motivation to learn or behavioral issues

(Scanlan, 2007). This contrasts with an asset model, where a student is cultural and linguistic differences are valued, respected, and utilized to the benefit of both native and non-English speakers (Holmes, Rutledge, & Gauthier, 2009).

Unfortunately, the deficit model is widespread in many language schools in America.

Questions arise in regards to culture because they do not ask about how international students visualize the image of American culture before they arrive in the United States and how they perceive it once having some intercultural experience (Ryan & Carroll, 2005). Some authors also indicate that it is important to locate the areas where the American community helps or obstructs the language-learning experience of international students. Some models can limit

40 foreign students’ social experiences and integration. Therefore, it is not surprising to see Arab and Chinese students tending to move together in their language-learning path even though they are aware of the fact that the use of their mother tongue slows down their pace of new language learning. This choice can be a cultural reflex to learning English in cross-cultural settings.

Educators need to know more about the origin of that cultural reflex since the clues that they might find with the help of research in this area can account for the reason students behave differently in class and outside the school (Sanderson, 2006). The research also helps to explain why students believe that their differences are perceived negatively by some Americans, and therefore, they are excluded from many of the native students’ social activities.

Developmentally speaking, studies on deficit-oriented and asset models of education are critical because they provide insights about learning theories and social constructivism. These are two issues, which Vygotsky and his advocates viewed as essential elements in the learning process. According to Papert and Harel (1991), learning and teaching are separate but related activities, and learning is a type of relational understanding based on the interaction between individuals and their environment. In other words, learning takes place in conditions where learners are actively engaged in creative experimentation and activity in an authentic learning environment. This viewpoint explains knowledge as a process developed through active engagement in valued undertakings throughout a learner’s life, and it cannot be limited to the education received through an institution (Lave & Wenger, 2002). Also, Wenger (1998) notes:

Our institutions … are largely based on the assumption that learning is an individual process, that it has a beginning and an end, that it is best separated from the rest of our activities, and that it is the result of teaching. (p. 3)

Socialization problems can arise especially when language education is limited to the activities in classrooms. From the social constructivist perspective, learning cannot be an individual or isolated process, and it occurs in a social setting by communicating with others

(Lave & Wenger, 2002) since knowledge is situated within a community in which a more knowledgeable other facilitates the interactions for language learning. This clearly explains the reason why language learners who have more intensive interaction with native speakers acquire the second language faster than those who are not exposed to authentic conversations or social engagement.

Traditional vs. Constructivist Language Teaching

The primary objective of any language teaching methodology is to improve the linguistic abilities of a learner. Even though the destination remains the same, the path that each language teaching approach follows differs based on the learning principles and pedagogical practices they adopted. Traditional methodology, for example, centers on a reduction of the integrated process of using a foreign language into subsets of discrete skills and areas of knowledge (Boumova,

2008). Traditionally, it concentrates on specific skills and areas of knowledge in isolation. A very typical feature of the traditional methodology is teacher-oriented (in some cases, teacher- dominated) interaction and instruction (Broughton, 1994). That is why, one of the usual criticisms of traditional language teaching is all about how a teacher strictly controls the learners’ progress. As implied in their focus areas, each methodology puts greater emphasis on specific skills or areas of knowledge, treating other skills as complementary or secondary.

In a sense, listening and speaking skills together with grammar and vocabulary are built upon formal teaching and learning, but when communicative, cognitive and whole language theories emerged during the middle of the 20th century, concepts like student-oriented teaching

42 and acquisition tried to replace teacher-oriented instruction practices. They constituted the fundamentals of constructive language teaching, also integrating communicative features of language into learner-oriented instruction. Such theoretical advancement has caused language teaching to evolve and broaden its scope rather than limiting its focus to a single aptitude or combination of skills and areas of knowledge. For instance, Communicative Language Theory referred to functional and communicative aspects of language with the influence of Candlin

(1978), Chomsky (1965), Hymes (1974), and Savignon (1972). Cognitive Theory addressed the characteristics of learners and the stages of language development that they experience. Some of the studies of Bruner (1975), Krashen (1981) and Piaget (1969) were significant. Finally, Whole

Language Theory was proposed in the 80’s by American educators including Goodman (1989),

Harste and Burke (1977), and Watson (1989) to help native children learn how to read, but it was later extended to foreign language learning. Of all these language theories, the Whole Language approach has comparatively had more unifying functions because it is based on the principle that a foreign language must be taught as a whole, without being divided into its components, such as grammar, vocabulary, listening, reading, writing and speaking. In a sense, the learning theory underlying the Whole Language approach is in the humanistic and constructivist schools, and therefore, it prioritizes activities that are relevant to the student’s educational needs, learning styles, experiences, and existing knowledge (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Indeed, constructivism is built upon the assumption that individuals bring their experiences and prior knowledge to the educational context where they connect new information to background knowledge so as to make sense of it (Piaget, 1969; Wertsch, 1997).

Differences of instructional styles associated with primary and secondary level education may be a factor related to the age of second language learning and the ultimate proﬁciency

43 acquired in later educational stages (Harley & Hart, 1997). In a way, language teaching styles based on two distinctive approaches, namely, traditional and constructivist, not only determine classroom dynamics but also drastically influence the effectiveness of language learning experiences of adolescents. Piaget (1972) believed knowledge could be acquired by building on simpler operations and structures that students have already formed. Having acquired such basic knowledge during childhood, adolescents have more potential to achieve transitional and productive learning experiences because of using operations of an advanced nature with those of simpler structures. As Goodman (1989) noted, any suitable language instruction specifically addressing adolescent age groups should be constructed around the operational abilities of the students because, only then, they can improve in their operational stage and ultimately achieve effective language learning.

The constructive language teaching style, to some extent, is based on Vygotsky’s Zone of

Proximal Development Theory, which bridges the gap between prior knowledge and the use of that knowledge to generate or acquire new knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). When students are actively involved in the learning process and when they can see some relevance in using it, they become more engaged and interested. According to Vygotsky, seeing what students are capable of doing on their own is important, but we should also look at what they are capable of doing in a social setting while developing their linguistic and communicative skills.

Linguistic and communicative developments depend on interaction with people, and the culture in which international students grow up helps them construct their worldview. Richards

(2006) claims that traditional language teaching creates isolated individuals who have very limited interactions with other students to practice the language. Even when these students have interaction with other class members, it is done for the sake of practicing on a very superficial

44 level (Ramberg & Karlgren, 1998). This approach also prevents the language learners from engaging in cooperative learning, which is a form of classroom organization that allows students to work together to achieve common goals (Livingstone, 2008). Constructive classrooms support students as they experience a cooperative learning experience to make connections based on each other’s thoughts and understanding (Fisher & Frey, 2008). It is an advantage to students that involvement in certain group activities enables them to see and experience different ability levels and a range of thoughts in the same group.

In closed communities, the term that Hickey (2012) used to refer to countries like China and Saudi Arabia in the Expanding Circle category, the English language is being traditionally taught in ways learner engagement and constructivist practices are limited. In order to understand some of the areas where students might fail to acquire English, a comparison of the traditional and constructivist classrooms should be made. The most fundamental difference in approach is that traditional language teaching is based on behavioristic principles, while constructivist language instruction tends to make use of cognitive learning theories. According to Brown and

Campione (1996), curriculum in a traditional language classroom begins with the parts of the whole language system and simply concentrates on basic skills in isolation. Curriculum, which is supported primarily by materials like textbooks and workbooks, represents a prescribed path, to which teachers and students should stick. These materials are used to help students learn new language structures through repetition.

Traditional language teaching favors the deductive style of instruction through which teachers can disseminate information to students (Decoo, 1996; Richards, 2006; Younie, 1974).

In such a teacher-controlled language teaching context, students are simply recipients of knowledge and may not have enough chances to practice language for communicative purposes

(Shaffer, 1989). Assessment and evaluation are achieved through tests and most of the time, there is only one correct or best answer in the teachers’ mind. Since knowledge is viewed as inert in this approach, students are guided and encouraged to work alone (Brown, 2004), and group work activities are dedicated to repetition and accuracy. Unfortunately, adolescents do not have enough opportunities to use their abilities because the engagement with others always stays on a superficial level. Language acquisition is not disseminated, and it takes longer to acquire any new knowledge. Mirahmadi, Kaveh, and Nosratzadeh (2011) view traditional language instruction as a central reason why students who learn English in traditional classrooms are only good at grammar, vocabulary and partially at reading. They believe that the majority of students are not that successful at listening or using a productive skill like speaking and writing.

Constructivism views learning as the interaction of new knowledge and experiences in the mind of the learner (Ausubel, 2000; Taber, 2009). By unifying new information with the previous experiences and knowledge, the students construct new knowledge. This approach contrasts with traditional language instruction, which highlights memorization or learning through repetition. Constructivist theory reinterprets in-class practices and settings in a variety of ways, from the interactions among teachers and students to the selection of classroom furniture.

Summary

This chapter reviewed literature related to this research. A depiction of factors and language education policies in home countries, which might affect the nature of language learning experiences of international students abroad, has been made. A detailed comparison between traditional and constructivist language teaching methodologies is also made to establish a basis and appropriately evaluate the background of the lived language learning experiences of international students both in their native and the target culture in the U.S. university.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

This chapter outlines the steps necessary to answer the following questions that can provide some valuable insight about the nature of Chinese and Saudi students’ language learning experience in a U.S. university.

Research Questions

1. How do non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students view their language learning

experiences in an ESL (English as a Second Language) context in a U.S. university?

2. How do the experiences and perceptions of Chinese and Saudi students compare with

regard to their English language education?

3. What insights can be gained from students, teachers, and administrators about

international student experiences that might enhance the quality of language instruction

in an ESL context in a U.S. University?

Appropriateness of the Research Design

An appropriate and well-executed research design ensures that the whole process is done in the most rigorous way possible. So, at the outset of a study, a researcher outlines what it is he wants to know. In the current climate of language education, the researcher is interested in finding the most effective way of exploring experience in a target culture setting. Therefore, seeing the possibilities and potential contributions of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to this project, I built the design of the study on mixed-methodology. To begin with, quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys. To a great extent, a quantitative research relies on the

47 relationship between an independent variable and a dependent or outcome variable within a population. Taking these connections into account, this dissertation research, on one hand, embraced a descriptive quantitative design since it only explores associations between variables

(Chinese / Saudi students and a language learning environment). Survey questions in this study enabled the researcher to explore those connections through basic statistical analyses

(percentage, frequency, and paired sample t-test). The researcher used proportional (%) analysis to study participants’ demographic profiles and cultural/educational preferences; frequency tables to evaluate their educational experiences; and finally, a paired sample t-test to examine how Chinese and Saudi students perceive their past and current language learning experiences.

To sum up, a quantitative measurement is required to explore demographics, learning contexts, and experiences, which simply served to figure out broadly who the participants were.

On the other hand, the qualitative strand of this research explored the meaning that is socially constructed by the individuals while they are interacting with the world around them

(Merriam, 2002). The researcher benefited from the premises of a qualitative research, which basically aims to reveal an in-depth understanding of participants’ behavior and perceptions with reference to specific topics or issues. In general, qualitative studies view the world or reality as unfixed entities whose interpretation by individuals is constantly changing. Qualitative researchers then concentrate on the interpretations of the reality by participants at a particular point in time and a particular context. Merriam believes that this research methodology is interpretive by nature because it seeks insights about how individuals experience and interact with their social world and what meaning they attach. Merriam’s perspective applies to my methods in this study because all interpretations and the additional triangulation process aim to explore the experiences of Chinese and Saudi students in the U.S. university context.

According to Creswell (2007), qualitative research is a process that begins with

“assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”

(p. 37). He also asserts that qualitative research today prioritizes the interpretive nature of inquiry and situating the study within the political, social, and cultural context of the researchers, the participants, and the readers of a study. Indeed, qualitative studies are interpretive and naturalistic while exploring issues of gender, culture, groups/communities, habits, and experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). These features motivated the researcher to include interviews in qualitative analyses in the dissertation in the hope of exploring emerging patterns/themes about experience and perceptions of the participants in connection with the findings from a survey in the quantitative phase.

In this study, the basic statistical analysis on a survey is expected to reveal some clues about the problems that international students are facing during their English language development. Responses from participants to the survey articulated similar areas of concerns and experiences within and across demographic categories. Once you had general understanding of trends, the researcher wanted more specific information about what instances might be for the people living those experiences. The qualitative data and their analysis refine and explain those experiences by exploring the participants’ views in more depth (Creswell et al., 2003; Rossman

& Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Finally, the quantitative part of the research will be based on the data and clues gathered with the help of an online survey tool, Qualtrics, while the qualitative strand relies upon studying transcriptions of interviews with the ESL students.

In language education context, the rationale behind using the mixed method is that the quantitative data and the subsequent analysis provide a general understanding of the research

49 problem about experiences and perceptions. To obtain a solid understanding of a research problem, Creswell et al. (2003) offer six mixed method design strategies, respectively:

Sequential Explanatory, Sequential Exploratory, Sequential Transformative, Concurrent

Triangulation, Concurrent Nested, and Concurrent Transformative. This study is characterized by collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by a collection and analysis of qualitative data. In addition, its purpose is to use qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of a quantitative study. For this reason, this descriptive research is a Sequential

Explanatory Mixed Method Design. In this design, the researcher first collects and analyzes quantitative data through surveys. Afterwards, the qualitative data is gathered and analyzed in the sequence to elaborate on the quantitative results obtained in the first phase. In this process, the qualitative strand of the research is built upon the clues found in the quantitative phase. This is exactly what closely resonates with the primary purpose of this study, which is to explore how

Chinese and Saudi students in a U.S. university perceive their language learning experience in an

ESL higher education context after having limited or no achievement while learning English in their native culture. The research also investigates how they interact with Americans and how this interaction works while developing their competencies in English.

A purely quantitative approach would not be a good fit for such educational studies.

Indeed, when the numbers regarding Chinese and Arab student enrollments are considered in the

ESL context, which was 747 students at the time of research, a basic quantitative study may not have reflected some insights about such abstract concepts as experience and growth in learning

(Lichtman, 2012). For this reason, the research methodology that best fits in this educational research setting is a mixed methods approach. Indeed, the eclectic nature of mixed methods enables researchers to have the flexibility to use all data collection tools rather than being

50 restricted to the types of data collection typically associated with either quantitative or qualitative research (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). The structure of quantitative research and its data collection tools allow the researcher to infer only about what he is examining. In contrast, qualitative methods can expand the perspective to key elements that were never elucidated or even previously considered (Borkan, 2004).

From an eclectic perspective, mixed methods research refers to those studies or lines of inquiry that integrate one or more qualitative and quantitative techniques for data collection and analysis. As Creswell et al. (2004) noted, “This form of research is more than simply collecting both quantitative and qualitative data; it indicates that data will be integrated, related, or mixed at some stage of the research process” (p.7). This inclusive nature not only offers the researcher an opportunity to explore deep descriptions and the subjects’ lived realities through qualitative methods, but also creates the potential to contribute the generalizability and statistical reliability that is the strength of quantitative research. Mixed methods research provides valuable opportunities for data triangulation and transformation and instrument design (Borkan, 2004).

Finally, mixed methods research can be viewed as a practical tool in the sense that the researcher is enabled to combine different quantitative and qualitative research approaches to form a productive line of inquiry. This practicality helps to solve research problems by using both numbers and words, combining inductive and deductive thinking, and employing skills while observing people as well as recording behavior. Overall, it can be said that mixed research methodology combines the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Johnson,

Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007).

Even though there are some implementation problems in educational studies, education is generally considered a core field for this innovative research methodology due to its practical

51 approach. Implementation problems are mostly based on the fact that there are too many diverse applications of mixed methods research (Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Niglas, 2004). These may create some methodological confusion in terms of research approaches being mixed, the scope of the mixing, the purpose or rationale for mixing like breadth and corroboration with participants, and finally, regarding the elements driving the research (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner,

2007). To eliminate confusion about the framework of this approach, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) suggested a broad and referential definition that incorporated diverse perspectives towards mixed research methodology:

Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of

researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g.,

use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference

techniques) for the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration. (p.

123)

The definition above primarily paved a logical path for this research since neither a purely quantitative nor a qualitative inquiry could adequately help to provide insights about the nature of the experience that international students were going through as second language learners. Therefore, while specifically exploring areas like learning, social integration, or cultural issues that individuals were undergoing, mixed methods approach stood out as a relatively more powerful research alternative.

Research Design

One of the most important tasks in the study design phase is to identify appropriate participants for the survey, focus group and individual interviews. Decisions regarding participant selection are based on the research questions, theoretical perspectives, and

52 observations informing the study. Quantitative phase of the study prioritized standardization of procedures and random selection of participants to remove the potential influence of external variables and ensure generalizability of results (Creswell, 2009). On the other hand, subject selection in qualitative research is a purposeful step. For that very reason, this study only involved participants who could best inform the research questions and enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study (Creswell, 2009; Kuper, Lingard & Levinson, 2008). In this study, participants were selected through sending invitation emails to all non-matriculated students in the ESL Center. Invitation emails were sent to the participants both in English and in Chinese or

Arabic depending on the native language they speak (See Appendix F).

Overall, a convenience sampling method was used to enlist volunteers to participate in the quantitative phase of the study, and as a result, about 10% of all students accessed the online survey. The process was ethical because the participants had the choice to participate and to drop out. At first, ten of the participants who completed the survey also agreed to participate in the interview phase of the study. In order to involve more students in the focus group interviews, the

ESL Center Director sent an invitation email to all non-matriculated students. With the help of the invitation email, seven more students took part in focus group interviews (17 in total).

Interview protocols were constructed upon prompts that derived from research questions and survey results, which might also allow for unexpected data to emerge (Jacob & Furgerson,

2012). Time and locations of interviews were carefully arranged to maximize student participation. In addition, student focus group interviews were conducted in single gender and language groups. The focus group interviews were designed to provide an insight into the responses given in the survey. All interviews were conducted informally and administered in

Chinese and Arabic by instructors from the same demographic and linguistic background to

53 facilitate ease of communication and to enable students express their thoughts clearly. All the sessions were recorded carefully and kept confidential by the researcher for later data analysis.

As a next step, the researcher contacted Chinese and Arab faculty and doctoral candidates at the

Modern and Classical Language Studies. In addition to two interviewers, three native speaker professors of Chinese and Arabic from that department volunteered to transcribe and translate all recordings into English.

Once the translated scripts of 11 interview sessions, which were obtained from 6-7-hour recordings, were received, the researcher attempted a systematic textual analysis as a part of discourse analysis. This process was critical prior to further elaboration in NVIVO. Instead of uploading all scripts on NVIVO and expecting the software to reveal some patterns randomly, the researcher first closely examined all the scripts in order to get familiar with the messages from interviewees. Textual analysis is a method of data analysis that closely examines either the content and meaning of texts or their structure and discourse (McKee, 2003). Through an iterative process, the researcher aimed to get some preliminary ideas regarding how experiences and perceptions are constructed, the ways in which meanings are produced, and the nature of those meanings (Lehtonen, 2000). Oral responses from participants conveyed some messages when the underlying meaning of the words was analyzed. Focusing on messages assisted in interpreting issues, conditions and events in which the participants found themselves.

After this preliminary textual analysis, all transcribed texts (14 pages from administrator interviews; 36 pages from language instructor interviews; and 43 pages from student interviews) were imported to NVIVO to facilitate qualitative analysis. On NVIVO, focus group and individual interviews were organized under different folders to create nodes, which let the qualitative researcher gather related material in one place so that it can look for emerging

54 patterns and ideas about specific people, organizations, or concepts. Nodes are based on the responses to interview questions. The researcher closely explored the quantitative data and included outliers and significant similarities/differences between Chinese and Saudi students while forming interview questions. In a way, NVIVO was used as a complementary tool that verified initial patterns in the textual analysis.

As a member of the international student population, the researcher tried to bracket his prior assumptions or understandings to achieve more openness to the themes or patterns in the data as they appear. A specific bracketing method, known as engagement in interviews with an outside source, was used to uncover and bring into awareness, preconceptions and biases (Rolls

& Relf, 2006). As an extension of this effort, international academicians who share the same linguistic and cultural background as the participants administered all student focus group interviews. Bracketing interviews conducted during and following data collection was used to uncover themes that may hinder the researcher from listening to participants or respond to their experiences appropriately. LeVasseur (2003) believes that researchers do bracket prior to understanding when they become curious. When they inquire in this way, they no longer assume that they understand fully, and the effect is a questioning of prior knowledge. For her, “inquiry motivated in this way is quite different from a state of ignorance untempered by all theory” (p.

417). Indeed, Merleau-Ponty (1964) described bracketing as a kind of astonishment before the world that disrupts habitual patterns of thinking. From this point of view, special attention was paid to the bracketing process not only to try to be objective and unbiased but also to see the experiences of others differently because in qualitative approaches addressing the concept of experience, “the process involves putting aside how things supposedly are, focusing instead on how they are experienced” (Finlay, 2008, p. 2). Finally, for the individual interviews, invitation

55 emails were sent to language instructors in the ESL center and to program coordinators who administer programs populated by Chinese and Arab students. Again, only those who confirmed via email or who were willing to participate in the study took part in the individual interviews.

Participants and Settings

There were two sample groups of participants in this study: 72 Chinese and Saudi students who filled out the online questionnaire and 25 participants who took part in either focus group interviews or individual interviews (5 language instructors and 2 administrators in the ESL

Center participated in individual interviews, whereas 18 students were involved in focus group interviews). Seventy-two students from the non-matriculated student body in the ESL center participated in the survey. The response rate was much lower than expected.

The mean age of the students was 23.9 years (range: 17 to 43 years). Saudi students comprised 79.2% of the participants, and Chinese students comprised 20.8%. In terms of gender,

52.8% of the participants were male, and 47.2% were female. The numbers reflecting the highest level of education completed were quite approximate (Saudi graduates: 22.9%, Saudi undergraduates: 77.1%; Chinese graduates: 26.7%, Chinese undergraduates: 73.3). Statistical data about the primary language spoken in their countries show that both Chinese and Saudi students come from totally monolingual communities. Finally, the data about the residences of participants revealed that distributions for both groups were quite close (Urban: 66.7%,

Suburban: 31.6%, Rural 1.8% for Saudi participants; Urban: 60%, Suburban: 40%, Rural 0% for

Chinese participants). As it is seen, student participants were heterogeneously representative of the general society as the students come from different educational, cultural backgrounds, as well as environments, ranging from cities to rural areas.

This study involves only non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students who were taking language education in the ESL Center at the time of the survey. Those who had already taken and passed TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or IELTS (The International English

Language Testing System), or who had achieved a high GPA score, were excluded since they may not have experienced language learning in the research setting. Language education in the

ESL Center plays a critical role in helping Chinese and Saudi students during their linguistic development and cultural integration because until they pass TOEFL or any equivalent exam, they are not admitted to registering for any graduate programs in higher education. Finally, to help these students reflect upon their experiences better, surveys were also available in Mandarin and Arabic. It was hoped that more Chinese and Arab students would respond to the invitation.

The use of mother tongue is a key point in this research since the clarity in their responses is vital to authentically reflecting the essence of their experiences.

Data Collection

There are four data sources in this study. First of all, a survey was used to collect descriptive information from international students. Next, focus group interviews with Chinese and Arab students, individual interviews with language instructors and individual interviews with the ESL center administrators were arranged based on the rich description and responses obtained in the survey.

The Survey

To collect quantitative data, the researcher designed an online survey using a web-based survey creation, collection, and analysis software tool, known as Qualtrics. I studied the data by using SPSS to obtain basic statistical analysis, such as percentage, frequency, and paired sample t-test. The Qualtrics was chosen to collect data because it was easier to manage survey authoring

57 and distribution; to get many responses from a wide variety of demographic groups

(Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Jeanne, 2011). The first three sections of the questionnaire contain 6 questions for demographic information, 13 questions about educational background, and 18 questions about the current language learning experiences of participants in the ESL center. Questions in these sections were either in multiple choice or in basic text entry format.

The fourth section in the survey, Language Learning Experience and American Culture, inquires about the experiences of participants through 4 open-ended questions. Overall, the online survey consists of 23 closed-ended questions, which limits respondents with a list of answer choices from which they must choose to answer the question, and 4 open-ended survey items, which gives the person who answers the questions more choices to give the information that seems appropriate to them (Dillman, Smyth Christian, & 2009). The fourth section concentrated solely on the experiences of the students and creates a bridge between the quantitative and qualitative strands of the research. All survey items helped the researcher to make data-driven decisions and inferences that were invaluable while doing qualitative analyses.

Finally, the survey was available in English, Chinese and Arabic.

Focus Group Interviews with Chinese and Arab students

As a complementary data collection tool, the focus group interviews helped the researcher gain a deeper understanding of what the participants stated in the questionnaires.

Indeed, focus groups are useful while obtaining in-depth information about personal and group feelings, perceptions, opinions, insights, attitudes, experiences, or beliefs (Gill et al., 2008).

Focus groups help the researcher to collect additional information as an adjunct to quantitative data collection methods. The total time and cost for planning such groups, conducting, and analyzing data may be relatively small when compared to individual interviews (Rabiee, 2004).

The rationale behind using focus group interviews in this research is that the validity of evaluation findings in mixed methods studies increases when using a variety of data collection techniques, including focus groups (Gill et al., 2008).

To form interview groups, the researcher sent a reminder email to Chinese and Saudi students who agreed to participate in the interviews. Interviews were conducted in 30-minute group discussions format, and interview questions were derived from the survey questions (See

Appendix A), which revealed critical areas that needed further elaboration in connection with research questions. Focus groups were arranged as single culture/gender groups in order to control stress factors in such meetings and to liberate participants from the limitations of using

English and social pressure in mixed groups. For the interviews, four focus groups were formed.

In each interview group, a maximum of five students from the same gender/cultural background were invited. More importantly, Saudi female students were interviewed by an Arab female professor; Saudi male students by an Arab male; Chinese female students by a Chinese female professor, and finally Chinese male students by a Chinese male professor. To choose Chinese and Arab interviewers, the researcher sent an invitation email to Chinese- and Arab-speaking faculty and doctoral candidates at language and education departments. Only the ones consented were invited to pre-interview consultation meeting. The research itself together with initial findings, demographic details and research questions were introduced to candidates.

Selecting appropriate interviewers was a highly critical step in this research because arranging single cultural gender groups was believed to help students express themselves in a more confident and competent manner. In a mixed-group interview session, some group members might be exposed to challenges, such as peer pressure, male-dominance, social status, and cultural habits. Male students, for instance, can dominate classroom-talk and mixed-gender

59 interactions, and female students may be silenced by the dominant classroom culture (Chavez,

2001; Jule, 2004). Similarly, Dabbous-Sensenig (2002) believes that Arab communities are still operating in a predominant culture of religious patriarchy and conservatism, which gives more rights to male figures in communal life. Therefore, mixed-gender interactions are still controlled by the males in Arab communities. As for the gender issues in Chinese culture, there are still some imbalances in society even though Mao’s New China advocated the idea that men and women have the same status (Xie, 2013). Many traditional habits still put women at a severe social disadvantage relative to men (Thornton & Lin, 1994).

Seeing the potential risks and clashes in mixed-gender groups in these cultures, the researcher assumed that conducting focus group interviews with mixed-gender participants would create an atmosphere that might specifically limit the self-expression of females. For this reason, all the sessions were conducted in single culture/gender groups, and the recordings in all these sessions were obtained from the interviewers as audio files in MP3 format via email. Later, these files were sent to the research evaluation office at the university for transcription. Research evaluation office sent the transcribed interviews as electronic documents ready to be imported in

NVIVO. Interview questions were basically about the language classes in participants’ home countries, their motivation to go abroad to learn English, their experiences in the ESL center, and the problems they faced in social life, and finally, the solutions they found to overcome communication problems (See Appendix G).

While creating interview questions, the researcher used Interview Protocol Refinement

(IPR) model proposed by Jones et al. (2014) and Castillo-Montoya (2016). This model is built on the four-phase process, respectively: (1) Ensuring interview questions align with research questions, (2) constructing an inquiry-based conversation, (3) receiving feedback on interview

60 protocols, and (4) piloting the interview protocol. Each phase helped the researcher gradually develop an appropriate research instrument for their participants and consistent with the aims of the research (Jones et al., 2014). The researcher in this study revised interview questions based on the feedback from the dissertation committee (Phase 1, 2, and 3) and discussed/simulated them with Chinese and Arab interviewers before they conducted the interview meetings (Phase

4). Taking the suggestions from the interviewers into consideration, questions were either reworded or omitted.

Interviews with Language Instructors

The researcher contacted five instructors in the ESL center to conduct 30-minute individual interviews. Interviews with instructors constitute an important part of the qualitative analysis since their responses can support, reveal, and contradict with what Chinese and Arab students have experienced during their language learning education in and around the ESL

Center. It was hoped that the conversations with language instructors would provide the researcher with more insights about in-class experiences of Chinese and Arab students. In some cases, their responses might even have contradicted the data gathered from the foreign students.

Instead of excluding such points in the qualitative analysis, the researcher viewed them as possible essential themes, which would require further elaboration. The researcher used the standardized, open-ended interview approach, which facilitated faster interviews that could be more easily analyzed and compared (Kvale, 1996). Whenever further clarification is needed, the researcher paraphrased the question and created some context that enabled the interviewee to respond to the question. Prior to the meeting, the interviewees were given some time to read and sign individual instructor interview consent form (See Appendix B) and audio tape/video consent form (see Appendix E). In parallel with the questions being asked in focus group interviews,

61 several questions were asked to the interviewees to share their teaching experiences and observations about Chinese and Saudi students at the language center (See Appendix H). The questions centered on how they described their teaching experiences with Chinese and Saudi students, how these two groups differ in terms of learning styles, cultural adjustment and attitude to learning English, what they think about teaching students of mixed cultural groups, and finally, how the experiences with mixed cultural groups influenced them as a language teacher.

Interviews with language instructors constituted an important part of the data analysis, especially in the process of triangulation. Their experiences, observations, and dialogs with

Chinese and Arab students in a natural setting provided the researcher with remarkable insights.

Indeed, interviewing is a valuable method while exploring the construction and negotiation of meanings in a natural setting (Cohen, Manion & Morison, 2007). The value of interviewing comes from the fact that it builds a holistic snapshot, analyses words, reports detailed views of informants, and it also enables interviewees to speak in their own voice and express their own thoughts and feelings (Berg, 2007). To help the interviewees raise their voice and express themselves as they wished, the researcher built the questions based on the responses that Chinese and Arab students had previously given in the online survey. Those responses provided the researcher with numerous areas that could make the interviewees more engaged while answering the questions.

Interviews with Administrators

The researcher also contacted two administrators in the ESL Center to conduct 30-minute individual interviews. Interviews with these individuals can reveal some insights about the experiences of Chinese and Saudi students outside the classroom context. Administrators’ observations of language learners in the ESL Center were considered invaluable. The

62 interactions with students in and around the corridors, cafeteria, library, or in the administrative office provided the administrators with some insights about what went right or wrong in the ESL

Center. They also got familiar with how students felt, in what areas they were making progress or having problems. Their interaction with students is a crucial source of information that helps the administrators make decisions about school organization, language methodology and tools for instructors, and finally, about the learning environment. Their concentration areas might differ from instructors’; however, their educational perspectives could be quite similar. For this reason, interview questions have shown some similarities. The administrator interview questions refer to how administrators interpret the educational and social experiences of Chinese and Arab students in and around the ESL center. After contacting three administrators via an invitation email, two administrators consented to meet and suggested a date/time/location for the interview.

The interviews were conducted in their offices as scheduled. After they signed the consent forms for interview and audio recording, they answered several questions (See Appendix I) in a 30- minute session. All the recordings were later sent to the research evaluation bureau at the university for transcription.

Data Analysis

This research follows Sequential Explanatory Mixed Method Design principles in which descriptive statistics in the quantitative part impose some directions for the upcoming stages. In this study, the survey functions as a tool that helps the researcher see the big picture and rethink the questions that might be included in the qualitative part. In fact, initial descriptive data analysis present the researcher with some clues to identify in which areas international students have had encouraging or demotivating experiences during their language-learning journey in the

U.S. academic environment.

The second and qualitative stage of data analysis builds its interpretation or arguments from those clues and eventually, on what international students state during the focus group interviews. The qualitative phase of the research began with the raw data, which was collected in the survey to provide explanations and interpretation of learning English as well as the situations that were being studied (Finlay, 2008). The following figure, which is inspired by Visual Model for Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design Procedures, proposed by Ivankova, Creswell and Stick (2006), shows the individual stages of the research and how they are connected throughout the study.

Figure 1

Visual Model for Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design Procedures (Ivankova,

Creswell and Stick, 2006)

While analyzing the qualitative data, first of all, different stages of coding were considered. Those stages included open coding (the first organization of the data to try to make some sense of it), axial coding (a way of interconnecting the categories) and selective coding (the

64 building of a story that connects the categories) (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). Later, themes or patterns that described the essence in the shared lived experience were grouped. While doing this, it was not planned or assumed that the researcher would aim to reach a saturation level considering the number of participants or interviews because as Finlay (2009) underlined, “the stage of analysis basically involves total immersion for as long as it is needed in order to ensure both a pure and a thorough description of the phenomenon” (p. 6).

Summary

Surveys and interviews with Chinese and Saudi students constituted the central sources needed for basic data analysis. Data collection was achieved through a mixed-method sequential explanatory design. I collected quantitative data first to see the demographics of the participants, their language learning experience in the home country and the U.S. university, and the problems they are facing in the target culture. In addition to basic analyses under Qualtrics, all the data was transferred to SPSS for further insights and connections within the data set. In-depth statistical analyses revealed some valuable details between and within the Chinese and Saudi student populations through multiple comparisons about their past and current language levels, progress and experiences. All these preliminary findings at this stage helped me design qualitative strand of the research and especially compose questions for interviews with students, language instructors and administrators. Interviews were conducted only with those who responded invitation emails. After signing consent forms for interviews and audio recording, I met with individuals and groups at the suggested and appropriate time and locations by the participants.

All the recordings were transcribed by the research evaluation bureau and translated by the

Chinese and Arab native speakers wherever necessary. All the transcriptions were imported to

NVIVO and converted to data sources. NVIVO reported findings in terms of coverage based on

65 the keywords entered. Interviews with language instructors and administrators were used as additional data content for triangulation. In the triangulation process, multiple data sources were used to ensure that data analysis was rich, robust, comprehensive, and well developed. As a researcher, I hoped that findings regarding the experiences of Chinese and Saudi students at the

ESL Center informed language, culture, and social programming for intensive academic English programs and universities.

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The amount of data collected from the survey and the focus group/individual interviews made it necessary to divide the analysis and interpretation of the findings into three separate sections. The first part of this chapter presents the quantitative analysis of the results from the participants’ responses to the online survey as they relate to the research questions that guided this study. The second part concentrates on the qualitative strand of the research that describes the coding of the data obtained from student interviews. This part also expands on the themes and categories that emerged from the survey data to provide rich descriptions of the findings.

The final part is built upon triangulation where two administrator and five instructor interviews are used to highlight and support findings.

In all these sections, three fundamental goals drove the collection of the data and the subsequent data analyses. Those goals center around the ideas to develop a base of knowledge about the language learning experiences of both non-matriculated Chinese and Saudi students in

Higher education in the U.S and about how they differ and resemble during that language learning process.

Quantitative Data Analysis

This chapter is divided into three major sections. The first section describes the respondents’ educational background, referring to the information about language learning experiences in and around their country. The second section focuses on the description of the current language experiences of the participants in the higher educational. The third section

67 explains the participants’ attitudes and beliefs about their language learning experience and

American culture. Finally, a summary is provided to highlight the most prominent data and themes that emerged from the survey data and how these are probed in the interview data as outlined in the sequential explanatory mixed method.

In addition to the descriptive analyses, which included percentages, frequencies, and correlations, some open-ended survey questions will also be explored qualitatively by using basic emerging theme/frequency analysis. In this way, I hoped to establish some promising connections between the quantitative and qualitative data before exploring the complex qualitative analyses. Evaluating written responses given to open-ended questions in this chapter will serve as a mediator that connects the quantitative data to qualitative interpretations as suggested in the conceptual framework.

Educational Background of Participants

To gain a more profound understanding of the academic background of participants, some survey questions focused on the areas where participants might have interacted with

English speakers or English language itself in their country or abroad (see Appendix A). Q7 in the questionnaire, for example, asks whether the participants have ever contacted with English speaking foreigners in their country. Interestingly, there was no difference between the Chinese and Saudi students who responded positively to this survey item (Saudi students: 54.5%; Chinese students: 53.3%). The majority of students stated that they met English speakers (Q8) mostly in public places (mall, restaurant, hotel, school, home, stores, gym, or cafeteria), in a business context (office, conference, or meetings), or in an academic context (language classrooms).

Regarding how much total time the participants have lived or traveled in an English- speaking country, there were significant differences between these two groups. Chinese students

68 had more life and traveling experiences in English speaking countries. Based on the responses to

Q10, which asks whether participants have ever lived/studied in another foreign country other than the United States, it is only a small portion of the entire group lived in the United States before (Saudi students:15.8%, Chinese students: 13.3%). In other words, over 85 percent of participants experienced the English language in the U.S. for the first time.

When it comes to their English learning experiences in their home culture, 30.6 percent of all participants were first introduced to English in the 2nd grade (age 7-8). In regards to the highest level of education that the participants completed (Q12), results were similar, too. There were two key values here in this analysis, which respectively showed that 61.1 percent of students were high school or equivalent graduates and 22.2 percent were college graduates.

Despite the fact that the majority of participants are either high school or equivalent or college graduates, the majority of the participants studied English for 7-9 years (37.5%) and 10+ years

(29.2%). This data revealed a critical fact regarding the effectiveness of their language education in their home countries. Even though the majority of Chinese and Saudi students took English courses in local schools during their secondary, high school and even elementary years, the linguistic and communicative competencies in the English language were not sufficient to take courses at the undergraduate level conducted in English. Therefore, these students, in general, are required to take language education in an ESL Center before their undergraduate or graduate studies. As for the type of institutions where participants studied English, it was clearly seen that

Saudi (63%) and Chinese (68.4%) students took language courses mostly in regular schools.

Outside the schools, however, Saudi students spent more individual effort to learn English when compared to Chinese students (Saudi: 20.5%, Chinese: 5.2%).

So far, descriptive analyses have indicated that responses from these two diverse cultural groups revealed similarly. The researcher asked two questions about individual language skills both at schools in home and target communities for further insights: Q15 (which of the language skills listed were considered more important in participants’ language education in their home country?) and Q16 (what were the participants’ levels of those skills before they began to study

English in an ESL center at a U.S. university?). Analyses indicated that the correlations between the level of importance and level of skills were not statistically significant (Saudi/Writing (r=-

.075, n=57, p=.578), Chinese/Writing (r=.427, n=15, p=.112); Saudi/Speaking (r=-.240, n=57, p=.072), Chinese/Speaking (r=.523, n=15, p=.045); Saudi/Reading (r=-.177, n=57, p=.187),

Chinese/Reading (r=.233, n=15, p=.404); Saudi/Listening (r=-.122, n=57, p=.368),

Chinese/Listening (r=.399, n=15, p=.140); Saudi/Grammar (r=-.142, n=57, p=.293),

Chinese/Grammar (r=.099, n=15, p=.726). In other words, there was no significant correlation between the level of importance the participants attached to individual language skills and the level of skills, which they assumed they had. This is another interesting finding because the participants studied English in a language-learning context whose principles are basically derived from a behavioristic model where language skills like grammar, writing, and reading were prioritized. Responses did not reveal any significant correlation even for grammar, writing, and reading skills. To a great extent, participants anonymously claimed that there was no connection between the importance assigned to certain language skills and the language level they had achieved.

To shed some light on this dilemma, the researcher concentrated on the strengths and the weaknesses of the language education in the home country of participants (Q17). For 72 Chinese and Saudi students, major obstacles from learning English were feeling demotivated (n=8),

70 unproductive language skills (Grammar & Speaking) which were based on outdated mechanical language practice as suggested in behavioristic learning model (n=12 in total), and the quality of language learning environment, teachers and language practice (n=12 in total) (Table 1). These factors underlined the reasons why these student populations felt the need to go abroad to study

English. Apparently, past time language learning experiences of Chinese and Saudi students bring some complexities into the data analysis process. Even though this section is solely dedicated to quantitative analyses, it is essential to insert some qualitative analysis done on questions like Q17 to clarify further the possible reasons why there were no significant correlations within or between the sets of data.

Table 1

Common themes reflecting weaknesses of language programs in the home country (Q17)

Theme Frequency Lack of motivation 8 Grammar 6 Speaking 6 Limiting learning environment 4 Lack of practice 4 Quality of teachers 4 Focus is not English 2 Limited school alternatives 2

When looking at the preliminary findings throughout the research, we mostly see factors as highlighted in Q17 that might appear in the usual list/set of complaints or limitations. These factors and related issues all stem from the Audio-lingual method. When the participants were asked to rate the quality of English education in their country as in Q18, the majority of Saudi students stated that ESL education in their country of origin was either poor (28.1%) or fair

(36.8%), whereas the majority of Chinese students indicated that it was fair (60%). Only a few

71 students in either group indicated that the quality of English education was good, very good, or excellent, in response to this question.

There is some discontent between both groups about the ESL education in their home countries. However, the question about non-language courses remains. Are participants dissatisfied with only English classes, or do they have problems with the other (non-language) courses in their schools, too? Q19 delved into how the perception of these students differed between language and the other (non-language) courses in their country. Responses to this question actually reflected a solid criticism regarding the overall quality of education. Compared to non-language courses, most Saudi students found language classes either ineffective (28.1%) or somewhat ineffective (28.1%). Only 14 percent of the Saudi students stated that language classes were more effective than other courses they were supposed to take. On the other hand,

26.7 percent of Chinese students believed that language classes were neither effective nor ineffective. The number of Chinese students who perceived language courses somewhat effective was around 40 percent.

To sum up, both student groups involved in this research revealed some critical areas where their language learning experiences in their home countries were relatively negative and quite similar in terms of the effectiveness of language instruction. However, one of the findings just presented on one difference between these study groups. It was about how much effort these groups put in their language learning. Responses indicated that Saudi students spent more individual effort to learn English when compared to Chinese students.

Current Language Learning Experiences of Participants

Participants’ responses showed that the majority of both student populations lived in the

United States less than one year (Saudi: 54.4%, Chinese: 46.7%) or between one and two years

(Saudi: 38.6%, Chinese: 53.3%). A greater portion of both groups were new to the educational context in a U.S. university and most probably going through the earlier stages of their intercultural experience in this target culture, which might be exceedingly challenging, especially while trying to adapt and embrace new cultural dynamics in the target culture.

In connection with this finding, Q21 asks if the participants studied English at another institution before they came to our ESL Center. The following analysis indicates that almost half of both groups took language courses at an American university in other states and then came to their current university to study due to several reasons. Those reasons include the cost of living, quality of education, transportation facilities, concerns about safety, distance to their hometown, cultural differences, distance to people from their cultures in the state, and the attitude of

Americans to minorities. To sum up, 44.4% of the overall participant population already had other U.S. higher education experience in other states.

Table 2

Did you study English in another institution before you came to [your current institution]? (Q21)

Yes No Saudi 42.1% 57.9% Chinese 53.3% 46.7% Total 44.4% 55.6%

These are critical numbers raising several questions. For example, if they had failed to learn English prior to their language learning experience in the ESL in a U.S. university, where were those institutions or locations? What makes the university in Ohio a second but better alternative? Responses given to Q22 (What state or country did you study before you came here?) showed that most students at first chose to take higher education in cities or countries like

San Diego, California, Miami, Florida, Michigan, South Africa, and England. This is a list of

73 favorite countries or states, which are commonly accepted or advertised to international students as great options for higher education.

In addition to the responses about locations, the results to Q23 (How long did you study there?) showed that almost 25 percent of survey participants studied English in those popular spots for more than 4 years and came here as struggling individuals in terms of linguistic, social, and cultural competencies.

Table 3

Length of studying English in another state or country (Q23)

About six For one year For two years For more than four months years Saudi 22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 22.2% Chinese 75.0% ------25.0% Total 38.5% 30.8% 7.7% 23.1%

As for the reasons why the students specifically preferred Ohio and the United States to study, replies from participants mainly revolved around good & quality education (n=22),

English as a primary language for communication and instruction (n=14), educational opportunities (n=8) and program diversity (n=4), as illustrated in the following theme frequency table:

Table 4

Common themes reflecting the reasons why participants specifically preferred Ohio and the

United States (Q24)

Theme Frequency Good & quality education 22 Native language context 14 Country of opportunities 8 Program diversity 4 Teaching methods 2 Advice of others 2

Freedom 2 Admission requirements 2

In the next survey question (Q25. What are your goals in learning English in the U.S.?),

14 participants prioritized two goals: to study in an American university and to improve language skills in English are the priorities. To get a better job was the next most popular emerging theme in participants’ responses.

Table 5

Emerging themes for the goals of learning English in Ohio and the United States (Q25)

Theme Frequency To study in an American university 14 To improve language skills in English 14 To get a better job 8 To contact native English speakers 4 To pursue graduate degrees 4 To help family business 4 To improve him/herself 4 To know other cultures 4

In connection with the emerging data in the table above, most Chinese and Arab students stated that the two basic communicative skills, speaking (n=24) and listening (n=10), were by far the most critical skills needed to achieve their individual goals (Table 6).

Table 6

Skills needed to achieve their individual goals (Q26)

Theme Frequency Speaking 24 Listening 10 All skills 8 Reading 8 Grammar 6 Writing 6 Practicing English 6

It is obvious that the priorities for both Chinese and Saudi students were speaking and listening, but some possible questions naturally emerged here, such as “why did they choose a university in Ohio?”, “what made them prefer to choose this institution?”, and “what motivated these individuals to study here?” To get some plausible answers to such questions, Question 27 in the survey asked participants to describe what made them choose this particular university.

Open-ended responses were coded into themes, and Table 7 below presents a list of all those themes.

Table 7

The reasons why the participants chose a university in Ohio (Q27)

Theme Frequency Advice or academic recommendation 10 School & city atmosphere 8 Program & major alternatives 6 Friendly people 4 One of the top universities in the U.S. 4 Safety 4 Relatives in Ohio 2

Responses to the Q27 centered around two central themes: “Advice or academic recommendation” and “School & city atmosphere.” Despite these factors, Chinese and Saudi students still tended to stick to their cultural groups instead of trying to reach native speakers on campus (Q34 - I spend most of my time on campus ...). It seems that Saudi students spent more time with people from their country (71.9%) compared to Chinese students (40.0%). This critical data accounts for the reasons why linguistic development of both Arab and Chinese students is still slow.

Another factor that might have an impact on the language development of these students could be their involvement in social activities on- and off-campus with Americans.

Unfortunately, the answers given to Q35 (I ... participate in social activities with Americans) indicated that these two groups lived in isolation in their cultural islets. Almost half of Saudi

(40.7%) and Chinese (46.7%) students rarely participated in any social activities on- and off- campus. Moreover, both student populations preferred to live in apartments (Saudi: 70.2%,

Chinese: 66.7%) where people from the same cultural background resided nearby instead of dorm facilities where mostly American students prefer to live in general. The most recent housing report, titled 15 Day Report Fall 2017 - International Student Data, was emailed to the researcher by university’s housing director. This report shows that there are currently 135 international students living on campus as of Fall 2017. In total, there are 6349 students living on campus (International students on campus: 2.12%, American students on campus: 97.88%). In other words, only a small portion of international students resides on campus with domestic students without being exposed to or having time to practice English in its natural context.

The Participants’ Perceptions of Their Language Learning Experience and American

Culture

Multifaceted survey analyses so far indicated that both Chinese and Saudi students kept to individuals or groups from their cultures and embraced a relatively isolated life throughout their language learning experience. The survey questions in this section, however, concentrated more on the reasons for such choices. For instance, Q38 asked participants to what extent

American individuals on and off-campus knew about the diverse cultures of Chinese and Saudi students and how these students perceived that indifference, if any. Responses to this question constituted a unique outlier in the analyses because almost all the students in both groups (Saudi:

89.5%, Chinese: 93.3%) believed that Americans knew little about Chinese and Arab cultures.

From the data, it seems likely that they tried to maintain their cultural identities while living in the American community.

As stated earlier in the introduction of this chapter, non-numerical analyses were also expected to contribute to the understanding of the perceptions of these two groups. Reponses to question 39, for example, demonstrated that there were many instances where participant students put the blame locally. They claimed that Americans knew so little about their culture, about their language, about their customs/celebrations, and the location of their country. Some students also contended Americans were indifferent or even harsh/impolite to the differences around them (See Table 8).

Table 8

Perceptions of Chinese and Arab students about Americans (Q39)

Theme Frequency Americans are harsh/impolite to the differences around them 8 Americans know so little about their language 6 Americans know so little about customs/celebrations 4 Americans are indifferent to other cultures 4 Americans know so little about their culture 4 Americans know so little about the location of their country 2

Hence, it would not be too surprising to expect that a learning environment with so many factors pointing to negative perceptions would push these students away from American social life and create immense reservation even if they tried hard to be a part of the communal life.

Indeed, respondents asserted that the lack of knowledge of Americans about their cultures directly and negatively influenced the nature and effectiveness of their language learning experience:

Table 9

How does the lack of knowledge of Americans about their culture influence the language learning experience of Chinese and Saudi students? (Q40)

Theme Frequency I am not motivated to learn English here because … Americans communicate superficially 6 Americans make fun of their mistakes 4 Americans are so direct and rude 4 Americans dislike us 2 Americans are not willing to continue conversation 2 Americans do not approach us 2

In order to specify the areas where these students were having problems in other respects, the researcher included two additional questions to the survey (Q41. Do you feel you are respected by the Americans on campus? and Q42. Do you feel you are respected by the

Americans in nearby communities or other communities in Ohio?). Responses to both questions revealed that Chinese and Saudi students feel respected not only by the Americans at their university but also at nearby communities in Ohio.

Table 10

Do you feel you are respected by the Americans at your university? (Q41)

Yes No Saudi 82.5% 17.5% Chinese 80.0% 20.0% Total 81.9% 18.1%

Table 11

Do you feel you are respected by the Americans in nearby communities or other communities in

Ohio? (Q42)

Yes No Saudi 82.5% 17.5% Chinese 93.3% 6.7% Total 84.7% 15.3%

On the other hand, a vast majority of students anonymously agreed that if they had the chance to interact with American students on- and off-campus here, they would get more motivated while learning English. It appears that the distance between these two groups and

American-peers represented a dissonance. This apparent conflict reduced the possibilities of successful communication and a possible sense of mutual understanding, which would primarily contribute to the overall quality of the foreign students’ language learning experience. When participants were asked about the best features of the ESL Center at their university (Q31), almost all of them claimed that the quality of teachers exceeded their expectations (n=14) in addition to the learning environment (n=6) and the teaching methods and syllabus (n=6).

Participants were also asked to rate the quality of English education in the ESL Center at their university (Q33). Ratings from the Saudis centered around Good (38.6%) and those from the Chinese around Fair (33.3%). Overall, the responses from both groups revealed the fact that the majority of these students ranked the quality of English education in the ESL Center as Good

(36.1%) compared to Poor (6.9%), Fair (26.4%), Very Good (20.8%), and Excellent (9.7%).

To compare the perceived quality of English education in home countries and the target culture in the ESL Center, a dependent t-test as a further step was conducted for both groups.

There was a significant difference in scores, and Saudi students rated quality significantly higher for the ESL Center at their university than the home country (t (56) = 4.017, p<0.001). It is evident that language education in the ESL center was perceived positively despite some distance and dissonance with the American individuals on- and off-campus. Some questions

80 about the perceptions regarding the language development remain: In what areas did these students feel that they were making progress? Were there any transitions in language skills achieved from a behavioristic model that was implemented in home countries to a relatively more learner-centered language teaching model which was put into practice in the ESL center? If any, did those transitions represent the philosophical differences between those two diverse language education approaches?

To explore the questions above and see the values that would represent the changes in the level of importance assigned to language skills, the researcher decided to conduct another paired sample t-test. Respondents indicated that Grammar and Writing were more important skills in their language education at the U.S. university compared to its importance in their home country.

The differences were statistically significant; for Grammar, t (71) = 4.630, p<0.001; for Writing, t (71) = 2.311, p<0.001. Considering a relatively more student-centered language teaching methodologies embraced in the ESL Center, it would be natural to see the emphasis was on listening, speaking, reading or even on pronunciation. However, these results suggested that both

Saudi and Chinese groups prioritized grammar and writing probably due to their long-lasting language learning experiences in the Audio-Lingual Method, as illustrated in the analysis of

Q13. The responses highlighted that 66.7 percent of the participants took language education in their home country for more than seven years and were being exposed to that outdated methodology. To a great extent, these two student populations were still under the influence of learning habits they had formed throughout the school years in their home countries. It is additionally possible to infer that these study groups also may understand the value of structure and writing skills to their academic goals, not just their communicative goals.

Despite those study habits that the participants had previously gained in their home country, they were still making considerable progress in all language skills. For instance, when they entered the ESL program, students were on Intermediate level in Grammar (29.2%) and

Writing (36.1%); on Lower Intermediate in Listening (38.0%), Speaking (36.1%) and Reading

(45.8%); and their level of Pronunciation was the lowest (Beginner, 33.3%) based on self- reported measures. As for the self-reported levels in different skills at the beginning of the study, their Grammar, Speaking, Writing, and Reading levels were populated on the upper intermediate level, whereas Listening and Pronunciation levels concentrated on the intermediate level. A dependent sample t-test was conducted again to see if there were changes in different skills for both student populations. Respondents indicated a significantly higher skill level in each area

(Grammar, Listening, Speaking, Writing, and Reading) at the end of the semester in the ESL center compared to when they started the language program. The following paired-sample results show that participants had significant progress in all skills, especially in Speaking; t (71) =

8.995, p<0.001.

Table 12

T-test results regarding the self-reported progress achieved in different skills (Q30)

t N Sig. (2-tailed) Grammar 8.048 71 0.001 Listening 7.599 71 0.001 Speaking 8.995 71 0.001 Writing 8.406 71 0.001 Reading 8.411 71 0.001

As the findings from the online survey indicated, the Chinese and Saudi student populations have a lot more in common than they differ. The areas in which these two groups differed were the total time they lived or traveled in an English-speaking country, the individuals

82 with whom the participants spend time within the United States, and the quality of English education in the ESL Center at the U.S. university. At earlier stages of this study, the researcher assumed that the statistical outliers would emerge in the differences section for these populations based on the distinct characteristics of each group.

On the other hand, the participants shared some common factors. These factors included feeling respected by the American individuals on- and off- campus, lack of knowledge of

American individuals about Chinese and Arab cultures, type of residence in the U.S., participation in social activities, the length of the participants’ English learning experiences in home countries, and the type of institutions where participants studied English. These areas constituted some reference points in the evaluation of the focus group and individual interviews in the study.

Overall, responses to the survey questions revealed some preliminary but solid findings about the demographic profiles of the participants, their language experiences in the past compared to the current, and more importantly, about how each participant group perceived those experiences together with their reasoning. Avoiding isolation or exclusion in social life was another area these students struggled. Unfortunately, these students tended to maintain the same lifestyle as they were accustomed in their home countries. They shared the residence, populated in the same neighborhood off campus, avoided participating in the social activities on campus, mostly did their shopping from markets whose owners are also from their home countries, and preferred to spend time with people having similar background. Accordingly, they had quite limited social interaction with the American community members. The lack of communication in

English made the Chinese and Saudi students depend on the language education in the ESL

Center. In other words, the quality of language education solely determined the level of their

83 language development. Some Saudi and Chinese students performed poorly in some skills and relied heavily on the study skills they had gained in their home country in order to get minimum

71 on the IBT and 525 on the PBT in TOEFL, and a minimum score of 6.0 in IELTS to be able to enroll in a program. Their priorities switched from acquiring language skills and competencies to simply meeting university requirements.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Here, the qualitative data analysis section will present in detail student focus group interview analyses and comparisons of Chinese and Saudi student populations through triangulation.

Student Focus Group Interview Analyses

All focus group interviews involved student participants and were conducted in their mother tongue. Later, interviews were translated by native speakers into English, and the researcher imported them into NVIVO in order to create nodes and to run some qualitative queries. Under NVIVO, constant comparison analyses were used. Responses from four distinct groups initially indicated that each group tended to concentrate on certain areas even though they were all asked the same set of questions. For example, Chinese students focused on concepts like anxiety, failure, schooling system, whereas Saudi students prioritized learning context, religious issues, and social activities. In other areas, their responses revolved around similar subjects.

When the number of nodes was considered, Saudi female students had 60 references coded with 65.05% coverage; Saudi male students 23 references coded with 25.10% coverage;

Chinese female students 33 references coded with 24.60 coverage, and finally, Chinese male students had 32 references coded with 31.12% coverage. The coverage percentage under NVIVO indicates how much of the source content is coded at this node. Saudi female students were the

84 most responsive group during interviews, most probably due to the use of mother tongue and the

Arab female interviewer. Apparently, they benefited from these factors and expressed themselves more freely than the other three groups.

The focus group analyses of Saudi students. When exploring conditions that limited language development in the target culture, the Saudis appeared unhappy about living so close or in the same residence with fellow countrymen (n=6). They also perceived the number of international students in the learning environment as a barrier that obstructed their progress

(n=2). Only a few female Arab students claimed that cultural or religious rules were limiting while studying English (n=2).

As for the language education in the ESL center, Saudi students anonymously claimed that class and exam schedules were overwhelming (n=6). They believed that the book choices and the way classes were organized (n=3), inconsistent student assessment (n=2), and lack of student involvement in listening and reading classes (n=2) were factors that Arab students were not happy about. Finally, they criticized the fact that the teachers were using the same tests, materials, and teaching method (n=3) even on different levels and classes.

Most of the Arab students stated that Americans knew little about others’ country, culture and religion (n=9), they communicated superficially (n=3), and they were harsh or impolite to the differences around them (n=3). According to the Arabs, this created some distance between themselves and Americans, and that is why, making American friends was difficult (n=2). On the other hand, they stated that Americans respected international students (n=2), and each and every social occasion with which they were involved with Americans contributed to their language development (n=1).

The Arab students also asserted that intensive speaking practice in the ESL also contributed to their social integration (n=3) and eventually achieving their individual goals

(n=3). However, there was a great criticism among Arab students about the social activities. The reasons for not attending social activities (n=8) were the presence of students from their own culture, not receiving any invitation from Americans, lack of encouragement and lack of support:

Arab female student #1: I honestly have no interest in participating in activities here at

the university. I am not into clubs or anything, the only event I attended was the

international day, and it didn’t involve Arabs much.

Arab female student #2: There has to be some encouragement from someone there for

you.

Arab male student #1: We have never received invitations from American students or

the school.

Arab students asserted that there were several types of activities they would be willing to attend, such as English language contests, discussion groups, picnics or sports activities.

Unfortunately, these opportunities were limited. Even if they heard about them, they felt that they were not invited. Overall, these circumstances intensified the students’ feeling of isolation, and therefore, they were inclined to organize activities within their cultural cliques.

The focus group analyses of Chinese students. The interviews revealed that Chinese and Saudi groups actually shared similar interests and complaints about the ESL Center and social life. Chinese students first concentrated on the conditions that limited the language development in the target culture and then the experiences of language programs in the home country. Referring to the former difference, Chinese students individually stated that they suffered from anxiety issues (n=3), learning habits that they had formed throughout their school

86 years (n=2), spending time with people from their culture (n=2), and finally, the number of

Chinese students in the learning context (n=2). As for the latter topic, which are the experiences of language programs in the home country, the majority of Chinese students complained about the qualities of language teachers in their schools (n=8) and the educational context (n=2) as exemplified in the statements below:

Chinese female student #1: We don’t have the language environment and teachers speak

Chinese in English class generally unless they need to read the vocabulary and text.

Chinese female student #2: Later when the teacher found most students are not

interested in interaction, teacher stop the interactive activity and we go back to language

tests.

Chinese male student #2: But Chinese instructors will not do the same thing. Chinese

instructors do not care. You are in my top class, you should learn by yourself. Instructors

should give all what he/she should explain in classes.

Both male and female Chinese groups highlighted that they had poor language learning experiences in all schooling (n=7); they just studied English to pass the tests (n=5) and not to experience failure again in language classes. These replies implied that there could be a strong connection between these students’ emotional states and their language learning experiences.

On the other hand, their language learning experience in an American university presented some similarities with those in China. For example, Chinese students stated that class and exam schedules were overwhelming (n=3), and for this reason, they were always feeling stressed out, incompetent, or even isolated:

Chinese male student #1: What teachers explain and what you ask are different, such as

they say hand in your homework tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, we will have an

exam.

Chinese male student #2: There are some conversation activities normally held in the

afternoon, but we have classes in the afternoon. So we cannot attend them again.

These students additionally argued that there was favoritism in language classes. For example, some language instructors retained an overly positive attitude toward certain student groups, while being indifferent to the others (n=2). They also indicated that they experienced harshness or lack of politeness by Americans off-campus (n=3) while shopping, driving or even visiting places. However, they did not overgeneralize such incidents. They simply affirmed that

Americans respected international students (n=2). While listing positive experiences in and outside language classes, Chinese students drew attention to the benefits of native language context (n=2), skill-based (n=2) and student-centered (n=2) language education in the ESL

Center:

Chinese female student #1: Here in America, classes are divided into different type like

listening, grammar, writing, etc.

Chinese female student #3: Teachers in American class focus less on mistakes you have

made and the score you got. They more concentrated the learning process in which you

can realize yourself that you do have learned things. So maybe this is the biggest

difference between American English class and domestic English class in China.

When it comes to the reasons why Chinese students could not attend social activities on campus, some admitted that low speaking abilities created a barrier (n=3), and no one kept

Chinese students posted about social activities (n=2). Some examples include:

Chinese male student #2: First, I did not have enough time. All the activities are held in

the afternoon that is just the time I have classes. So I do not have time to attend and get

myself prepared. Sometimes I don't even know there are such activities held. It is too late

to know.

Comparisons of Chinese and Saudi Student Populations through Triangulation

Responses from each group so far have concentrated on language learning styles and past/current experiences in both home country and a U.S. university. These responses created a vivid image about how Chinese and Saudi students perceived in-class practices and social interactions with language teachers and Americans, in general. Interviews with five language teachers and two administrators provided additional data to triangulate findings. According to

Jacob (2001), researchers can overcome the limitations, intrinsic biases, or the problems that come from single-method, single-observer, single-theory studies by combining multiple observers, theories, methods, and empirical materials. The primary purpose of triangulation is, therefore, to obtain confirmation of findings through the convergence of different perspectives.

Triangulation in this study functions as a process of verification that helps the researcher increase the validity of his research findings by incorporating several viewpoints and methods

(Yeasmin & Rahman, 2012). In this study, the researcher utilized three triangulation approaches: triangulation by data source, by method, and by data type to increase validity in the research findings. Comparisons help to answer research question #2 and pave the way for research question #3.

Learner differences from administrators’ and instructors’ perspective.

Administrators and language instructors can have numerous opportunities to observe closely

Chinese and Saudi students in and around the ESL Center. When the experiences of Chinese and

Saudi students are compared in the light of questions asked and data obtained in interviews, it is clearly seen that they have more in common while studying English than presumed at the start of the study. Even though these two groups are from totally different cultural, linguistic, and belief systems, they share similar experiences throughout the lengthy language education. Interviews additionally proved that Chinese students had more stressful goal-driven language education experiences where the language of instruction is Chinese even in English classes, whereas Arab students had language education fundamentally built on mechanical language practice. Overall, the quality and effectiveness of language education in both home countries were indicated and perceived as very low.

Administrator interpretations. Administrators involved in the individual interviews

asserted that Saudi students were more interactive in and around the classroom. They

showed more willingness to communicate face-to-face with administrators, while

Chinese students did not necessarily like to meet that way. According to Administrator

#1, the stereotypes from Americans toward Arab students would make it harder for them

to interact than potentially the Chinese. Administrator #2 claimed Arab students were

more independent and not always helping each other, but Chinese students tended to keep

to their friends and study in groups. Administrator #2 also stated there were great

regional differences among Chinese students compared to the Arabs, and this might

provide some of the reasons why Chinese students had shown more variation in terms of

language level, social status, and income. Overall, the interviewees believed that these

students were quite similar regarding study habits, in-class activity, and emotional state

across the language education.

Instructor interpretations. Instructor #1 believed Chinese students seemed to have

approached English more from an academic viewpoint, whereas Saudis were more from a

social stand. Instructors #2 and #5 agreed with instructor #1 on the fact that Saudi

students were more verbal and willing to participate in class activities, but Chinese

students had to be drawn in to participating quite often. Another difference emphasized

by Instructors #3 and #4 was that Chinese students did a lot of memorization while

practicing vocabulary, grammar, and writing. Both instructors, however, granted that

both groups had minimal critical thinking, and that it was another factor limiting their

language development. Overall, all instructors perceived that these two groups were

acting or functioning in completely different ways in language classes (n=23).

Difficulties Chinese and Saudi students have in the target culture. When the experiences with the two study groups were asked in the interviews, administrators and language instructors shared some critical observations about the challenges these student groups faced. It was clearly seen that responses from these individual interviews contributed to the findings in the focus group interviews. For instance, several factors that could limit language development of these international students in the target culture already emerged in focus group discussions.

These factors included anxiety issues, cultural or religious rules, learning habits, spending time with people from their culture, and the number of international students in the learning context.

The last two factors here were also emphasized in the quantitative analyses. Numerical data showed that both student populations preferred to live in apartments (Saudi: 70.2%, Chinese:

66.7%) where people from their countries resided nearby instead of dormitory facilities where mostly American students preferred. Moreover, Saudi students tended to spend more time with people from their country (71.9%) compared to Chinese students (40.0%). These were critical

91 findings that could lead to understanding on the reasons why the language and pre-academic skills development of Saudi students was relatively slower than that of Chinese students.

Challenges for learners from administrators’ perspective. Based on their observations,

administrators listed several challenges (n=16) that obstruct language development and

social integration of Chinese and Arab students. Those challenges included race,

misunderstanding of cultural expectations, personal space, Americans’ attitude toward

Arab and Chinese people, lack of interest or knowledge within the American community

about other cultures, ethnocentrism in American culture, and isolation or exclusion from

social events. All administrators agreed that, when taken together, all these challenges

constituted serious obstacles for Chinese and Arab students on and off campus.

Challenges for learners from instructors’ perspective. Language instructors believed

that one of the biggest challenges for Chinese and Arab students was to switch to a new

language, English, having an entirely new alphabet and sound system compared to

Chinese and Arabic. According to the instructors, switching from Chinese or Arabic to

English could be overwhelming for most of the learners. Instructor #4 viewed this as a

source of insecurity in terms of linguistic competence, which made students tend to hide

from the language instructors and classmates, to be reserved in class and to stay quiet

during language practice.

Instructor #5 agreed about this and asserted that this was a big challenge for these

students, which made them stressed, shy, hesitant, reserved, or discouraged. Instructors

claimed that Arab students tried to overcome this by getting support from their friends in

class and being as assertive as possible. On the other hand, according to the data, Chinese

students tried to handle switching to a new language system by continuing what they did

best: memorizing, studying for the exams, and studying together.

Perceptions of Chinese and Saudi students about Domestic Students and Local residents. It is most persistent in the comments about how these students perceived the attitude of domestic students and local residents towards them. The way they treated Chinese and Saudi students and showed respect also appeared to be critical areas. These two student groups, on the other hand, seemed to have interpreted the distance in social interactions or personal space as a sign of respect even though Americans had quite limited information about who these students were, where they came from, what they believed or what kind of lifestyle they had.

Students’ perceptions of respect from administrators’ perspective. Based on their

observations, in and around the ESL Center, administrators critically evaluated how

international students interpret and perceive the concept of respect. Administrator #1

believed that confusion about respect stemmed from the differences in communication

styles, “Well I would point to culture again. Americans are very quick to be nice and will

easily talk with somebody at a superficial level, so I think because of that initial,

superficial niceness.” Administrator #1 also thought that Americans were quick to say

that we should get together, but “it is not necessarily something we mean.”

Administrator #2, on the other hand, approached respect from a different point of view

and claimed, “I think there’s probably cultural differences, but respect is also we respect

your difference, but we are not ready to engage you.” According to Administrator #2,

American indifference was a kind of respect here, and actually, it was the way that

Americans operate in a multicultural social context.

Students’ perceptions of respect from instructors’ perspective. Language instructors

shared similar ideas with administrators about respect (n=8). Instructor #2, for example,

viewed respect as the personal distance that international students might misinterpret.

Instructors #3 and #5 asserted that Americans tended to have superficial niceness while

communicating with international students. Instructor #5 additionally claimed that

specifically Chinese female students were overly sensitive to issues about respect,

whereas Arab boys had a very superficial interpretation of this concept. She believed that

“respect comes from knowing someone deeply and knowing who they are,” so getting to

know individuals from other cultures could be very challenging if they tended to stay

with their cultural groups most of the time and to withdraw from social interactions.

Sources of conflicts/indifference for both international students and the locals. Concepts like race, cultural expectations/misunderstandings/features, social adjustment and personal space could result in some clashes between international students and American individuals (n=16).

Sources of conflicts from administrators’ perspectives. To begin with, it must be stated

that the viewpoints of administrators were quite different from those of instructors.

Administrators reflected more conflicts about the social life of the students on and off-

campus, while language instructors focused more on problems about the students’ in-

class practices and dialogues. For example, Administrator #1 provided a nonconformist

self-criticism about American culture and stated, “For Americans, it is very easy to

generalize or stereotype an entire student population when you do not know anyone from

that population.” She further stressed that cultural conflicts stemmed from

misunderstanding or misinterpreting cultural expectations especially when there was no

mutual empathy between the “guest” and the “native.” he also asserted Americans in this

area lived in America, and the increase in international students was quite recent, so to a

large degree, people in this region of Ohio were still trying to figure out how to integrate

international students into daily life and how to get to know them better. For

Administrator #1, ethnocentrism was a negative factor somehow settled in the U.S.

society, and this could be viewed as one of the sources of indifference to other cultures,

non-Americans, in particular, within the same community.

Administrator #2, however, adopted a different perspective, and he claimed that

the number of Chinese and Arab students in such a small area created some density

where these students could easily find someone from their culture with whom to

associate. He additionally complained about one-sidedness in social occasions

emphasizing that the American side persistently tried to invite Chinese and Arab students

to gatherings where they might feel uncomfortable attending instead of acknowledging

their own cultural celebrations. According to Administrator #2, the American attitude

was: “You can live here parallel with me; I am not going to bother you, but I am not

going to bother to get to know you, either.” This, to the administrators, was one of the

mistakes that Americans had been making. This attitude gradually created socio-cultural

distance among these three distinct groups of Arabs, Chinese, and North Americans

within the same community.

Summary of Findings

The research basically included three different data sets: online survey, focus-group student interviews, and triangulation through individual interviews with language instructors and administrators. These data sources were analyzed in order to find some answers to the research questions. The six-hour interview data were collected from four focus group student interviews

95 and from seven instructor and two administrator interviews. Even though these are separate data sets, they are interrelated with each other. Further, almost all of the findings from the data sets support each other. Some of the key data revealed from the current study are summarized as in the following:

An Overwhelming Transition from Outdated Language Learning to a Relatively More

Student-Oriented Model

Despite major differences, both groups came to the ESL Center in a U.S. university with similar long-term language learning experiences ranging from 6 to 11 years. Most of these students already felt unmotivated or discouraged about studying English, and starting from their arrival, they tended to continue language studies with the learning habits they had previously acquired throughout the years in their home countries where language instruction methodology was still based on behaviorism.

Earlier stages of language learning experience at the American university, therefore, posed challenges for these students than expected because language teaching here embraced a relatively more student-centered model, which was built on constructivist principles. It seems that the biggest challenge these students are facing is a transition from the behavioristic language model in the home country to a relatively constructivist student-oriented language teaching methodology in the ESL Center at the American university.

Single-Gender and -Language Interview Groups Making the Participants more Expressive

Compared to other three groups, Arab female students were more assertive and critical about their language learning experiences in the home country and in the American university. In a research context where they had the chance to converse with someone with the same language, gender and cultural background, they felt more confident while expressing their needs, fears, or

96 expectations. Overall, assigning an interviewer with the same gender and the use of participants’ mother tongue during interviews created a more positive discussion atmosphere by eliminating the language and social barriers. This might have prevented the participants in the past from expressing their needs and reactions as they wished. Single-gender and -language interviews seem like a more productive approach for studies with international students, especially while exploring such critical realms as culture, language and gender.

The Number of Chinese and Arab Students in the Learning Context as a Negative Factor

The participants in this project stated that they were not happy about living so close to individuals from their own cultural background on and off campus. Even though they were aware of the fact that sharing the same learning environment with numerous students from their communities slowed down the language learning pace and reduced the effectiveness of their efforts, they still tended to stick to their cultural groups claiming that the American community on and off campus did not tolerably embrace them. Both Chinese and Arab student groups claimed that differences in race, communication styles and cultural expectations caused

American individuals to keep their distance with international students.

Tension and Lack of Interaction between Chinese and Arab Students

Even in the same language-learning environment, Chinese and Saudi students rarely interact with each other. There is a common dissonance between these two groups. This stems from the differences in financial status, lifestyle, communication habits in and outside the class, and attitude towards other cultures. Interestingly, only Saudi female group showed some willingness to communicate with Chinese student groups in spite of the differences in gender, language and belief systems. Saudi male, Chinese male and female students did not prefer to

97 spend time or to share some social experiences with the other groups. Even if they had to, they stated that it should be limited.

Distinct Cultural Definitions for the Concept of “Respect”

There were two contradictory outcomes in this research. The first one was about how

Chinese and Saudi students perceived the Americans on and off campus. The second was about whether these students felt respected by the Americans or not. Great majority of both groups

(over 90%) stated that Americans knew little about the culture, language, traditions, habits, and lifestyles of Chinese and Saudi students. However, around 85% of students stated that the

Americans also respected them. These two numbers not only created a dichotomy but also highlighted an area that the researcher needed to elaborate. Individual interviews with language instructors and administrators clarified the possible reasons behind this dilemma.

Apparently, there was a drastic difference between international and American sides while conceptualizing the term respect. The ways Americans communicate, keep personal space or distance, and show kindness are what these students have literally misinterpreted.

Misinterpretations created some opportunities for international students to converse in earlier experiences with Americans. However, in later stages, they resulted in confusion, anxiety, embarrassment, or even frustration. Both sides gradually lost their willingness to get to know more about each other in time, and eventually, Chinese and Saudi students began to spend more time with individuals from their own communities to reduce the possibilities of anxiety, loneliness, isolation, and academic failure. To an extent, this can be viewed as a form of defense mechanism or cultural reflex that help these individuals handle complexities about respect in a target community.

Achieving Similar Language Development despite Differences

Under the influence of traditional in-class behaviors in home countries, both groups internalized certain educational practices or habits. Instructors stated that while teaching mixed groups, the influence of those traditions could be easily traced. For example, Arab students are more assertive and talkative, whereas Chinese students are more quiet but systematic in language practices by nature. However, skill-oriented t-test showed that language progress of both groups was approximate. If minor discrepancies ignored, it is quite possible to say that both groups presented similar progress in all language skills. Apparently, the immersion of constant language input and learner-centered approach resulted in slow but gradual change or similar outcomes in students’ behaviors or habits in language classes.

Distance between International Students and American Individuals On and Off Campus

This study also revealed that it was necessary to establish a platform for constant interaction not only between international and American sides but also among these three distinct cultural groups. Undoubtedly, the indifference or conflicts among these groups stemmed from the lack of dialogues. Each group had some assumptions about the other two, but never questioned the validity of their assumptions. Based on their experiences, they derived their own understanding about the other cultures. They simply created their own one-sided definitions during or after communicating. They got even judgmental before they attempted a dialogue.

Apparently, the distance among these groups was getting excessive, which eventually resulted in more conflicts, vulnerability, misunderstanding, indifference or even hostility. It was obvious that these three groups lacked a medium where mutual empathy could be attained. As suggested by the language instructors and administrators who were involved in this research, the

ESL Center could and should be more a more functional and creative environment while

99 organizing events for socialization, intercultural dialogue, and unified learner community on and off campus. Seeing that international students were feeling more confident and secure in the ESL

Center, they would definitely show more willingness to participate if occasions were appropriately set.

Otherwise, the ESL Center will remain to be an academic asylum in which these students are feeling socially and linguistically safe. Within the borders of the ESL Center, these figures are happy and confident as long as they are supposed to do whatever expected by the teachers.

Outside the ESL building, they do not have to worry that much since they mostly get together with friends from their culture. In a way, international groups create two worlds in the American culture for themselves: One in the ESL Center and one in their residence with some people from their home community. Unfortunately, there are only minor experiences that might interfere the usual two-way street between these two spots. Doing shopping in groups and eating in the same restaurant with close friends were limited outside experiences as highlighted in interviews.

Learning Habits of International Students

As seen clearly, a great number of findings in this research are based on the concept of habit. One of the interesting findings about habits is that every time these students faced a challenge in a language class, they were inclined to go back to their usual studying habits, such as memorizing long list of vocabulary, doing mechanical drills, and using writing/grammar templates. Of course, these activities still have values for some language learners when considering the variety of learner types, but in the constructivist language teaching methodology, these activities have comparatively little value. Constructivism simply rejects repetition on the grounds that repeating a subject matter only creates familiarity - not acquisition. In other words, constructivism is built on the concept of experience, not isolated language practices of different

100 skills. Interviews in this research revealed some conflicts where participants’ learning habits clashed with constructivism. In those samples, students started blaming the language teaching approach in the ESL Center and wished if the system in their home country had been used here.

Whenever they came up against a problem, they immediately seek for an escape where they would feel comfortable and confident again. This clearly indicates that both Chinese and Arab students are sensitive or even vulnerable to whatever challenges their comfort zone.

Limited Social Activities

Participants from both groups emphasized that one of the reasons of their isolation on campus was that they were not informed about the social activities effectively. Even if there were some social occasions, they were neither culturally appropriate, nor anybody invited or encouraged them to participate. In addition, activities organized in and around the ESL Center involved only international students - not American students. Therefore, the intercultural experience of international students with Americans once more remained quite limited.

As participants indicated in the interviews, some sports activities were organized in the past. At first, all students regardless of their nationalities were invited. American students participated in those activities with completely American or multinational members. This created limited but positive interaction between American and international students. However, recent organizations achieved very low participation from both sides. Arab students involved in the research claimed that activities on campus while studying English did not interest them at all.

Except for a few excursions and shopping trips to certain destinations like shopping outlets,

Niagara Falls and Washington D.C., which again only Chinese and Arab students attended, they were offered very limited socialization opportunities.

101

Favoritism in Language Classes

Having a language teacher from their own culture can be a very motivating factor for students. Seeing the short-term benefits, the ESL Center recruited some Chinese and Arab instructors and advisors. This definitely created a more effective problem solving approach within the ESL Center. At the earlier stages of language learning experience, both Chinese and

Arab students had the chance to use their mother tongue while they are facing overwhelming challenges. Chinese and Arab language instructors helped them in class whenever needed in language practice, and Chinese and Arab advisors found solution to international students’ problems outside the class. However, since the number of international students was not evenly distributed in classes, one group dominated the other. Especially when the language teacher is from the same nationality of the dominant group, the other groups in class felt excluded.

The use of mother language use in class by the more crowded group also resulted in some dissonance for the rest. Unfortunately, the way these language instructors responded to students from their own cultural background was open to misinterpretations, and this created a snowball effect in class. The unequal distance of the language instructor to class members made students build some anger and harsher reactions. This might be considered as one of the reasons for why the Arab and Chinese students were having indifference, very heated debates or even fights on campus. Even in the same language skill class, while doing peer or group work, they sometimes reject to be partners from other cultures. When they were pushed to participate, they do not simply produce anything.

Overwhelming Class and Exam Schedules

Most Chinese and Saudi students stated that they benefited from skill- and student- oriented instruction at the ESL Center. However, exam and daily/weekly class schedules were

102 overwhelming and discouraging. Some Chinese students asserted that this is a source of anxiety in their studies, which was quite the same as in China. Both Chinese and Saudi students also noted the timetables - not the intensity - of language classes prevented them from attending social activities. Random scheduling by the ESL administration pushed these students wander in and nearby the language center and gradually kept them away from on-campus activities. Even if they really wanted to participate, they had to rush back to their language classes since language teachers were extremely strict about attendance and harsh on latecomers.

The Quality of Language Materials and Tests

It was obvious in student responses that they were not in favor of language drills in classes and exams with multiple-choice questions. In several occasions, different language teachers used the same materials on different levels or even used the same exam. This truly demotivated students, and in general, raised concerns about the quality of curricular organization within the ESL Center. Listening and speaking classes were great disappointments due to repetitive tasks and drills. Students did not feel that they were making progress even when they scored full in a quiz or task. Students’ worries ironically switched from getting high scores to improving skills.

103

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION

This study aimed at exploring the perceptions of non-matriculated students throughout their language learning experiences in an intensive English program at an U.S. university. The poem, titled A Culture and Tolerance by Hasmukh Amathalal, illustrates how tolerance can be ideally embedded into social life and education while practicing and hence understanding a culture. Amathalal (2017) puts great emphasis on the role of tolerance in understanding other cultures and achieving mutual respect between individuals. His poetry is built upon concepts like tolerance, understanding others’ cultural identities, respect, and mutuality. These terms were also the central concepts giving directions in this study. Major findings in this study delved into the same or relevant concepts.

This final chapter includes, respectively, the overview of the study, implications, recommendations for future research, limitations, and conclusion. In the overview of the study, the researcher presents context of the study, problem and purpose statement, nature of the study, and the rationale behind the choices the researcher made throughout the data collection and analyses, and finally, the brief summary of the findings. What the language instructors and administrators have suggested is given in the implications section. The next section, recommendations for future research, highlights the areas that require further action and attention. The part of limitations lists in what areas the study shows some weaknesses or bias.

Finally, the conclusion section provides a brief summary of the current chapter and the whole study.

104

It is hoped that the deliberation on the experiences of these two diverse communities in the university context will reveal some insights that might enhance the quality of language instruction in the ESL context in northeastern American universities. The findings presented in this chapter demonstrate and highlight the areas where potential changes and improvements could be made to better the language learning experiences of both international groups involved in this study.

The Overview of the Study

After delivering an online survey and conducting a series of interviews within the framework of mixed-method research, the researcher collected data in order to form a rich description for both Chinese and Saudi students in the language learning context in the target culture. While doing this, their perceptions and experiences were elaborated to address two central research questions, which inquired how non-matriculated Chinese and Arab students viewed their language learning experiences and how their experiences and perceptions are compared in regards to their English Education. The third research question built its arguments by focusing on “the insights that could be gained from students, teachers, and administrators about international student experiences that might enhance the quality of language instruction in

ESL context in a U.S. university.”

To address all these questions effectively, the researcher prioritized to investigate the perceptions while learning English in an American university after having 6-10 years of language study in the home countries. The research took place at the ESL Center with the participation of 72 non-matriculated students in the online survey, 18 students in focus group interviews, 5 language instructors and 2 administrators in individual interviews. All surveys and interviews were delivered in the participants’ mother tongue, and then, native speaker instructors

105 from the same university translated all responses to English. The online survey helped the researcher gather detailed information about demographic features of both groups and educational experiences in the home country and in the research context. The survey presented consent form and served as a tool for participant selection for interviews. Responses given to survey questions provided the researcher with some critical insights about these two distinct student groups. All those clues helped to determine what questions to be asked in focus group and individual interviews.

One of the strengths of this study is the use of mother tongue in all data collection processes. Using mother tongue reduced psycho/emotional barriers most language learners suffer from. These barriers include affective factors like anxiety and social bias, self-belief, motivation, attitude towards language and learning, and social disposition. Reducing the probable effects of these factors encouraged the participants to be more confident while voicing their opinion and overall perceptions. Online survey, participant selection, consent forms and interviews were completed in time as scheduled thanks to the use of participants’ mother tongue. The researcher kept participants posted about the interview schedule and the rooms designated for interviews by sending emails in Chinese and Arabic. Prior to online survey and focus group interviews, participants were aware of all the details regarding these stages, and for this reason, all data collection activities went smooth without any confusion.

The researcher emailed the interview questions to the interviewers two weeks before the sessions were conducted. This enabled them to translate questions and discuss with the researcher if necessary. This period was iterative, and the researcher revised research questions to avoid ambiguity or confusion. The clarity of the questions was another critical area in the interviews since they were going to provide invaluable themes for the qualitative analyses. The

106 researcher also contacted the dissertation committee members to get their approval for questions.

As soon as the question sets for focus group and individual interviews were confirmed, they were sent to interviewers. The interviewers were allowed to paraphrase the questions in participants’ mother tongue during the sessions. This approach made interviews more productive, insightful, casual, and more importantly, less stressful. Interview sessions were recorded with voice recorders and later transcribed by three instructors from the Translation Studies Department. The researcher scheduled follow-up meetings with these instructors to clarify the incomplete responses in the transcriptions, and based on the suggestions, he completed the interview texts.

Later, I conducted individual interviews with language instructors in the ESL Center and administrators in Cultural Foundations Department and the ESL Center. After he emailed invitation letter and consent forms, six language instructors and one administrator from the ESL

Center and one school director from Cultural Foundations Department consented to participate.

Interview meeting were scheduled for days and locations appropriate for the participants. All individual sessions were conducted and recorded as 30-minute sessions in English. Later, they were sent to The Research and Evaluation Bureau in the university for transcription. In all transcriptions, non-verbal expressions were also highlighted.

Soon after receiving the transcriptions of both focus group and individual interviews, the researcher initiated qualitative analyses. With the in-depth explanatory data from these dialogues, he started to draw out some emerging patterns to form themes and codes. In total, there were 11 interview texts, and it would be challenging to see patterns. In order to produce better results that can reveal meaning, experience and views of the participants, the researcher used a powerful qualitative analysis software, titled NVIVO. This software is designed to meet research needs of qualitative researchers working with very rich text-based and/or multimedia

107 information, where deep levels of analysis on small or large volumes of data are required. It is intended to help users organize and analyze non-numerical or unstructured data. This tool lets the researcher to group, sort and arrange information; examine relationships in the data; and combine analysis with linking, shaping, searching and modeling. Seeing the coverage percentage of certain keywords or expressions, researchers can easily create lists of nodes/themes, and prepare the frequency tables for repeating terms or expressions.

When all the transcripts were imported into NVIVO, the researcher first ran basic textual analyses based on the central concepts relevant to research and interview questions. The program semantically evaluated the entries and reported those concepts in terms of their coverage in all sessions. By considering the coverage (%) reports, the researcher created NVIVO nodes, a term used to refer codes or coding process in qualitative studies. Nodes in NVIVO represented emerging themes from grouping of lower-level data points. Later, he revised all interview texts to see whether those themes existed in responses from different groups or not. This process in

NVIVO assisted the researcher to create frequency tables for emerging themes and facilitated triangulation.

Final stage of qualitative analyses were constructed upon triangulation, which reflected common themes emerging in two administrator and five instructor interviews. The researcher reviewed findings from student focus group interviews and compared them with those emerging in individual interviews. As stated earlier, surveys and interviews with international students served as the central sources needed for basic data analysis. Interviews with language instructors and administrators, on the other hand, were used as additional data for triangulation. In the triangulation process, multiple data sources were used to ensure that data analysis was rich, robust, comprehensive, and well developed. While interpreting findings from all data resources,

108 common themes were primarily explored. Other themes in which some differences were observed functioned as supportive elements that contributed to the overall understanding of participants’ responses. The researcher aimed to see to what extent findings in the qualitative strand of the study supported or contradicted with the quantitative results. This recursive process ensured that rich descriptions revealed in the data analysis were valid and revealed valuable insights that could answer research questions.

Implications of the Study

Findings in this research clearly imply that there are several areas, which require further attention and clarification to better the quality of language education in and around the ESL center. This section presents those areas highlighting implications and including recommendations by the researcher, language instructors, and administrators.

The Orientation about Cultural Diversity is Necessary

Individual interviews with administrators and language instructors underlined one fact:

The diversity that Chinese and Saudi students created in class, on campus and in town contributed to an understanding to better approach international students. Both administrators and language instructors stated that they professionally benefited from the presence of international students in and around the ESL context. They got more familiar with the cultural behaviors, learning habits, and belief systems. These two groups learned about the international students by trying out some strategies, and to an extent, by making mistakes.

Knowing that Chinese and Arab students by nature are oversensitive to some cultural and religious issues, the try-and-see approach of administrators and language instructors may result in some irreversible damage while international students are taking language courses. In-class conflicts can be additionally demotivating for some students who are already facing some

109 challenges in the new culture. Incidents like raising voice against Chinese and Saudi female students to warn them, physical contact like handshakes with Saudi female students, or asking

Saudi male students to be quiet by saying shhh can be devastating experiences for them. In some cases, such responses may trigger heated debates between students and teachers. International students having experienced such and similar incidents with language instructors and administrators can be discouraged, reserved or even infuriated as revealed in interviews.

Therefore, an orientation about cultural diversity prior to academic year can be crucial for mutual/cultural understanding, better language learning experience in and outside the class, and overall academic integrity.

The Use of Mother Tongue in Surveys and Interviews should be Encouraged

In order to get more insights, the researcher delivered online survey, consent forms, invitation letters, and interviews to Chinese and Saudi students in their mother tongue. In this way, he aimed to reduce language limitations and anxiety issues while speaking in English.

These two factors in general prevent international students from expressing themselves in different social contexts (Humphries, 2011). It was assumed that lowering anxiety due to lack of communication skills in English would positively affect the achievements and performance of

Chinese and Arab students throughout their social and psychological development (Albano,

2004). Humphries and Albano claim that language production suffers when students are nervous, meaning that they are less effective communicators when their self-esteem is low. Apparently, this is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken, but far more research needs to be conducted on how this might be achieved. This study, of course, to some extent, is addressing that research need in this area by putting emphasis on the use of mother tongue in such and similar studies.

Actually, this is one the areas why this research is significant in the field of educational research.

110

A More Inclusive School Policy should be Established

Administrators involved in this study strongly believed that a top-down model where authorities, deans, or department heads can initiate university-wide mentor or conversation partnership programs was necessary. They also stated that there needed to be more and more resources for faculty on the administrative or faculty level about how they might include, not only integrate, and how they could positively take the advantage of the international student population in the classroom. These were all important connections because Chinese and Saudi students were apparently bringing new perspectives, experiences or habits to the classroom and social context off campus, which the locals probably were not accustomed or had never experienced before.

One administrator claimed that the university had a quite aggressive diversity policy on the institutional level, especially while hiring new personnel and addressing multiculturalism.

However, not all these efforts permeated the community as expected. In the light of these clues, it can be implied that the university should go through what is called the welcoming community process that some state schools in Ohio established to address their refugee population. The sense of belonging, community and global identity can only be achieved when more inclusive policies are implemented in social life both on and off campus. Language instructors, on the other hand, suggested certain activities such as local sports tournaments, cultural gatherings, and potluck dinners that might have interested international students. These organizations can create some opportunities that might encourage both American and international communities to get together and interact much more effectively. International student population should be specifically and consistently informed about all sorts of social activities.

111

More Welcoming Housing Options On-Campus should be Offered

Another critical proposition made by the language instructors was about on-campus housing options. Quantitative analysis in this research about the preferences of international students indicated that Chinese and Saudi students tended to reside in apartments off-campus where mostly American students prefer. Even though several residential alternatives were recently created on campus, the American students populated them all. In other words, the majority of American students preferred on-campus residential options, while Chinese and Arab students favored off-campus alternatives. In general, international students, especially Arab students, viewed on-campus dorm settings as religiously and socially unappealing to them. To a great extent, this is not their personal decision – this is simply a choice pushed by social norms, cultural habits, and religious rules that these students developed in their home country during childhood and adolescence. Even though Chinese students had more flexibility about residence options, they showed similar tendencies under the influence of their cultural habits. Such culturally imposed choices moved these students away from American students, and more importantly, from language practicing opportunities with native speakers. For this reason, the interactions between these two distinct communities, international and American students, in the same living context is quite limited. To reduce the distance between these two groups, it would be a productive attempt if more welcoming housing options and strategies on-campus for international students were created.

Teaching Diverse Student Populations should be a Part of Professional Development

Programs

Culture can play a significant role in the learning process, and language instructors in

ESL centers are asked to teach in increasingly multicultural classrooms. There is no doubt that

112 teaching different student groups help faculty members and administrators about getting familiar with the characteristics of these groups. Awareness of the faculty over the cultural characteristics of their students and the preparedness while addressing those differences are critical factors that determine the quality and effectiveness of language instruction. These factors make in-service professional development crucial to maintain a high standard of language teaching.

Of course, the presence of diversity in the schooling environment provides the teachers with some reflective and experiential opportunities. This can be a reflective experience in the sense that teachers regularly have time to evaluate their teaching practices in class. They constantly evaluate the scope of their own pedagogy and reflect on how their specific teaching decisions in connection with the cultural characteristics of diverse student groups impact their learning. This is also experiential because teachers can learn through experience or reflection by doing. Hands-on learning is a form of practice and can be crucial for professional development.

However, it would not be realistic to expect language instructors to gain effective cultural responsiveness in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms in one single professional development session. Acquiring such competencies can be achieved step by step. Indeed, as

Villegas and Lucas (2002) pointed out, cultural responsiveness is a gradual progress that can be explained and attained through sociocultural consciousness; an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds; commitment and skills to act as agents of change; constructivist views of learning; learning about students’ past experiences, home and community culture, and world both in and outside of school; and culturally responsive teaching strategies. A professional development program, which is basically built on these concepts, can actively engage language teachers when they need to focus on specific needs of their students. Such programs will definitely ensure all international students achieve better language learning.

113

More Opportunities Need to be Provided for All Students to Develop Cross-cultural

Competence

Student diversity can be viewed as a rich educational resource even though it adds some complexities to the schooling context. Cultural diversity can create many opportunities not only for language instructors/learners but also for American individuals on and off campus. Bringing all these groups together in social occasions help each one learn from the others about different languages, customs, and worldviews. Regardless of their origin, when individuals interact with persons from the same background, they can get culturally blind about seeing and doing things.

With the help of everyday activities on campus settings, students, instructors and administrators are challenged to find ways for interacting more effectively with international students. To achieve this progressive understanding, instructors and administrators should be working in collaboration with student clubs/groups while organizing such occasions. Overall, initiatives that involve international and domestic individuals are vital for each group while gaining cross- cultural competencies.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study explored specific questions and issues, but there are also some other areas yet to be explored. Suggestions and questions that need to be addressed in future research include the following:

− How would the study differ if conducted in other states or regions in the United States?

− American universities have recently attracted international students from other countries,

such as Korea, Japan, Turkey, Nigeria, Ghana, and Russia. These minor student

populations are disregarded in this study, but future research should involve them since

these can bring different perspectives to the research context and interpretations. Instead

114

of focusing on a single student group in connection with a certain skill and context, more

inclusive studies could be conducted. Then, in what areas would the findings show

differences if the study included minor student populations in the same research context?

− How could the distance between Chinese and Saudi students be reduced?

− How well do Chinese and Saudi students perform while taking undergraduate classes? In

what areas or skills do they have problems? To what extent do these problems obstruct

their academic progress?

− This study included heterogeneous gender groups. It seems that isolating individual

gender group from others limited responses. Some interviewees, for example, gave

examples about a few critical social issues that might have interested others and

eventually triggered a more inclusive discussion. Then, to what extent would

homogeneous gender groups make a difference in terms of responses?

− This research highlighted the advantages of using mother tongue in surveys and

interviews while investigating international students. The use of mother tongue can offer

numerous advantages for the researchers and vast research potential in the field of

language education. More studies should be conducted in participants’ languages.

Limitations

All research is biased to some extent, and no research is exempt from weaknesses. Even though the researcher carefully planned the study to reduce the limitations, there were still some limitations, which could not be avoided, including:

− The study is using self-report questionnaires to gather data, and it assumes that

participants are honest.

115

− It also assumes that participants are typical and will respond similarly to students

elsewhere.

− The study is not a nationwide study, and results may vary depending on the state or

region in the United States.

− The participants are limited to the Chinese and Arab students.

− The sample size is small because the survey was delivered at the end of the academic

year in 2016. A larger sample size could be obtained throughout the semester by keeping

the potential participants informed.

− The mother tongue of participants was used throughout data collection process, both in

online survey and interviews. Later Chinese and Arab professors translated written

answers in the online survey and oral responses in the interviews to English. The

researcher noticed that several details, perhaps some critical data, were lost in translation.

Some responses from the participants were ambiguous. Therefore, translations can be

viewed as another limitation in the study while exploring such ambiguous responses.

− Some student groups, such as Chinese female and Arab female students, were represented

with relatively few participants. Their responses were quite brief and did not provide the

researcher with in-depth information.

− The researcher also realized that some Saudi male students did not participate in the focus

group discussions. Apparently, their social status did not allow them to weigh in and

interrupt others from higher status. Such experiences could be avoided by allowing for

longer focus group sessions or by having individual interviews with students.

− The researcher had a lot in common with the participants. For example, he is a not a

native speaker, and he studied English as a foreign language outside his home country.

116

Those similarities might have resulted in some biases and prejudices of which even he

might not be aware while interpreting the data.

Summary

This research explored the perceptions of Chinese and Arab students, and findings revolved around such central concepts as lack of interaction, inclusiveness, and cultural tolerance/awareness. When international students as non-matriculated members of a university community had the chance to interact with others on and off campus, they could get more competent socially and linguistically. These competencies helped these student populations build confidence by reducing their anxiety, vulnerability, hesitation or even fear while interacting with native speakers in different social contexts. For this reason, implementing inclusive language programs and organizing social occasions became highly critical concepts for non-matriculated students. Indeed, the involvement of these students in different occasions is a key factor to address their educational and social needs. In other words, communication is the key to enhance the overall quality of language learning experience, and hence, to improve the perceptions of international students throughout language education in an ESL Center in a northeastern

American university.

Conclusion

Learning English as a foreign language in an American university can be hard because the learning process poses several challenges for Chinese and Arab students. To begin with, these students need to construct new cognitive framework in order to understand how English language is structured and how it works in communication. Until they acquire some skills in

English, their social activities can be very limited. They hesitate to participate in activities outside the ESL Center and their cultural groups. This attitude also limits their exposure to

117

English and eventually slows down their pace of language development. Earlier language learning efforts, therefore, suffer from repeating cycle of limited development.

When students move to a different country or region, learning the local language will help them communicate and integrate with the local community. However, as long as they spend too much time with people from the same cultural background, the communication and integration within the local community can be inadequate. If we view a language as the road map of a culture, it is possible to conclude that roads of international students and Native American rarely intersected.

It was interesting to see that both Chinese and Arab students started to move away from their cultural groups towards the end of semester. They simply prioritized skill learning rather than grades and object learning. However, they periodically went back to their study habits that they had gained in their home country in order to pass the proficiency exam. This transition made acquiring language skills tougher and made international student more stressful. That is why, most language learners in the ESL Center in the northeastern American university suffered from anxiety or other psychosomatic issues. The awareness over how their cultural groups limited their progress grew in this period.

There were also some other issues that affected the pace of language development. These issues included course and exam schedule; lack of social activities; the qualities of teachers, language programs, exams, and language practice materials; in-class dialogs between Chinese and Arab students; and the way the language teachers managed classes. All four-student groups in the interviews shared their concerns about these issues from different angles. For example,

Arab female students approached social issues differently compared to Arab males. Criticisms

118 from Chinese male students centered around language practice materials, whereas Arab male students concentrated more on the qualities of interaction in class with the language teacher.

Overall, all four groups made progress in all language skills, and the majority of students passed proficiency exams needed to take classes in undergraduate programs. Despite major differences in cultural and educational background, both Chinese and Arab groups had similar and significant progress in different language competencies as highlighted in Table 12, which shows the t-test results regarding the perceived progress achieved in different skills.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SELF-REPORT ONLINE SURVEY

Appendix A Self-Report Online Survey

Consent Form

A STUDY ON HOW NON-MATRICULATED CHINESE AND ARAB STUDENTS PERCEIVE THEIR LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN AN ESL CONTEXT IN AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

Before taking part in this study, please read the statement below and click on the "Next" button at the bottom of the page if you understand the statements and freely consent to participate in the study.

You are invited to participate in a study that will provide more insightful perspectives for language instructors, administrators and language education policymakers about the nature of your language learning experience in the United States. The study is being conducted by Murat DAGISTAN, a doctoral candidate in Curriculum and Instruction, Kent State University, and it has been approved by the Kent State University Institutional Review Board.

Participation in the study typically takes 20 to 25 minutes and is strictly anonymous and confidential. You will be asked to provide general demographic information about yourself and various questions about your previous and current language learning experiences in your country and in Kent State University, Ohio.

Results from this data will be pooled and published in aggregate form only. The actual survey is password protected and an unauthorized individual cannot view your responses.

In this study, you will not have any more risks than you would in a normal day of life. There are no direct benefits by participating in the study. However, what we learn from the study may help educators to see what kinds of problems, advantages or cultural challenges international students are experiencing during their studies in American cultural context.

Participation is voluntary; refusal to take part in the study involves no penalty or loss of benefits to which participants are otherwise entitled, and participants may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.

121

122

Deciding to participate or not will not impact your position and relationship to your institution. If while taking the survey, you find questions you do not wish to answer, you may skip them. You also can stop taking the survey at any time if you do not wish to complete it.

If participants have further questions about this study or their rights or if there are any concerns, they may contact Murat DAGISTAN at [email protected], or Dr. Joanne Dowdy, at [email protected], or the Kent State University IRB, at (330) 672-2704.

If you are 18 years of age or older, understand the statements above, and freely consent to participate in the study, click on the "Next" button below to begin the survey.

I consent to participate in this survey

No, I do not consent

PART 1- Demographic Questions 1. Which country are you from? 2. How old are you? 3. What is your gender? 4. What is your primary language (i.e., the one you speak most of the time)? 5. What other languages are spoken in your home culture and community? 6. Which of the following best describes the area you lived in your country? a. Urban (in, relating to, or characteristic of a city or town) b. Suburban (a town or other area where people live in houses near a larger city) c. Rural (in, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside or village rather than the town)

PART 2 - Educational Background (Your Language learning experiences in your country) 7. Did you ever have contact with English speaking foreigners in your country? a. Yes b. No

8. If yes, where did you mostly meet them?

9. Have you travelled extensively in a different country? 10. Yes 11. No 12. Have you lived/studied in a different country? 13. What age did you start to study English as a foreign language? 14. Please indicate the highest level of education you completed. a. Grammar school b. High School or equivalent

123

c. Vocational/Technical School (2 year) d. Some College e. College Graduate (4 year) f. Master's Degree (MS) g. Doctoral Degree (PhD) h. Professional Degree (MD, JD, etc.) i. Other

15. How many years did you study English in your country? a. None b. 1-3 c. 4-6 d. 7-9 e. 10+

16. Where did you study English in your country? a. In regular schools b. In cram schools c. I tried to learn English as an individual or independent effort

17. Please rate your experience with the following skills or areas of knowledge in language education in your country, where 1 is most important, five is the least important. You can give the same score to more than one skill. For example, you can assign 1 (most important) to Grammar, Reading and Writing at the same time.

1 2 3 4 5 Grammar Listening Speaking Writing Reading Integrated skills Pronunciation Content integrated English as a medium of instruction

18. What was your level in different skills below before you came to Kent, Ohio?

Beginner Lower Intermediat Upper Advanced Intermediat e Intermediat e e Grammar Listening Speaking Writing

124

Reading General English Academic English

19. What are the strengths and the weaknesses of the language education in your country?

20. Overall, how do you rate the quality of English education in your country? a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. Very good e. Excellent

21. Compared to the other (non-language) courses you were taking in your country, English lessons were ...

PART 3 - Current Language Learning Experience 20. How long have you been in the United States? a. 1 year b. 2 years c. 3 years d. 4 years e. 5 years or more

21. Did you study English in another institution before you came to KSU? a. Yes b. No

22. If yes, how long did you study? a. For 6 months b. For 1 year c. For 2 years d. For 3 years e. For 4 years f. More than 4 years

23. What are your goals in learning English in the U.S.?

24. What English language skills are needed to achieve those goals?

125

25. Please rate the experience in the following skills or areas of knowledge in language education in Kent State University, where 1 is most beneficial, five is the least beneficial. You can give the same score to more than one skill. For example, you can assign 1 (most important) to Grammar, Reading and Writing at the same time.

1 2 3 4 5 Grammar Listening Speaking Writing Reading

26. What was your level when you entered the ESL program in Kent state University?

Beginner Lower Intermediate Upper Advanced Intermediate Intermediate Grammar Listening Speaking Writing Reading

27. What is your level in different skills below now?

Beginner Lower Intermediate Upper Advanced Intermediate Intermediate Grammar Listening Speaking Writing Reading

28. What were the best features of the ESL Center at KSU?

29. What were the problems of language education in the ESL Center at KSU?

30. Overall, how do you rate the quality of English education in the ESL Center at Kent State University? a. Poor b. Fair

126

c. Good d. Very good e. Excellent

31. I spend most of my time on campus ... a. with people from my country b. with people from other countries c. with Americans d. with my close friend (from my country) e. with my close friend (An American)

32. I ...... participate in social activities with Americans ... a. Never b. Seldom or rarely c. Sometimes d. Often e. usually

33. I live in a ... a. Dorm room b. House c. Apartment d. Other …………………..

34. I share my residence with… a. people from my country b. a person from my country c. American students d. an American student e. other international students f. another international student

PART 4 - Language Learning experience and American Culture

35. Do you think that American individuals on and off-campus know enough about your culture? a. Yes b. No

36. If you say no, please give an example about this.

37. How does their lack of knowledge about your culture influence your language learning experience?

127

38. Do you feel you are respected enough by the Americans at Kent SU? a. Yes b. No

39. Do you feel you are respected enough by the Americans at nearby communities or in communities in Ohio? a. Yes b. No

40. If you say no, please give an example of disrespect which you experienced or observed.

41. Write here anything you would like to say about your experiences being an international student at KSU. (text box)

42. Interviews As seen in the table below, Chinese instructors will conduct all interviews with Chinese students, and Arab instructors with Arab students, for example. More importantly, you will be allowed to use your own mother tongue during discussions.

If you would like to be in the group interviews to share your experiences in detail, please choose the group below and enter your email.

Group Interviewer Mother tongue Chinese female students Chinese female professor Allowed during the interview Arab female students Arab female professor Allowed during the interview Arab male students Arab male professor Allowed during the interview Chinese male students Chinese male professor Allowed during the interview

Yes, I would like to participate in interviews. My e-mail address is ………………………………

APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Appendix B Individual Instructor Interview Consent Form

129

APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Appendix C Individual Administrator Interview Consent Form

131

APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Appendix D Focus Group Interview Consent Form

133

APPENDIX E: AUDIO TAPE/VIDEO CONSENT FORM

Appendix E Audio Tape/Video Consent Form

135

APPENDIX F: ONLINE SURVEY STUDENT RECRUITMENT EMAIL

Appendix F Online Survey Student Recruitment Email

137

APPENDIX G: STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Appendix G Student Interview Questions

● What was instruction like in language learning classes in your country?

● What motivated you to go abroad to learn/to speak English?

● Could you please describe/share your experiences in your classes here in the ESL

center?

● In what ways did your experiences influence you? How did they help you overcome

communication problems in your social life in America?

● Is there anything you would like to add that was not addressed with the questions?

139

APPENDIX H: LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Appendix H Language Instructor Interview Questions

● How would you describe your teaching experiences with Chinese and Saudi students?

● How would you describe differences between Chinese and Saudi students in terms of

learning styles, cultural adjustment and attitude to learning English?

● What do you think about teaching students of mixed cultural groups?

● How have the experiences with mixed cultural groups influenced you as a teacher?

● Is there anything you would like to add that was not addressed with the questions in

this interview?

● What questions should have I asked you about Chinese and Arab students?

141

APPENDIX I: ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Appendix I Administrator Interview Questions

● How would you describe your experiences with Chinese and Arab students as an

administrator?

● How would you describe differences between Chinese and Arab students in terms of

learning attitudes?

● How have the experiences with mixed cultural groups influenced you as an

administrator?

● Is there anything you would like to add that was not addressed with the questions in

this interview?

● What questions should have I asked you about Chinese and Arab students?

143

REFERENCES

Abir, M. (1986). Modern Education and the evolution of Saudi Arabia education: National and International Politics in the Middle East: Essays in Honour of Elie Kedouirie. New York: Routledge. Ahearn, L. (2011). Living language: an introduction to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.

Albano, E. (2004). Cognitive-Behavior Therapy with children and adolescents. In Ed. Jesse H. Wright, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. American Psychiatric Publishing Inc. Washington: DC.

Alhamad, R. (2018). Challenges and Induction Needs of Novice English as a Foreign Language Teachers in Saudi Arabia. IJELS: Education for the Future, 6 (1), 50-63.

Alharbi, H. H. (2015). Internal and External Efficiency of the Saudi Education System. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8 (1), 91-98.

Al-Khairy, M. H. (2013). English as a foreign language learning demotivational factors as perceived by Saudi undergraduates. European Scientific Journal, 9 (32), 365-382.

Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English Language Acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory-cum-remedial Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5 (8), 1612- 1619.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2012, December 11). Status and functions of English in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Gazette.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2014). The Four Most Common Constraints Affecting English Teaching in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4 (5), 17-26.

Al-Sharideh, K., & Goe, W. R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university: An examination of factors influencing the personal adjustment of international students. Research in Higher Education, 39, 699-725.

Altbach, P. G. (2006). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In J. J. F. Forest and P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 121- 139). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Amathalal, H. (2017). A Culture and Tolerance. Retrieved from www.poemhunter.com/poem/a- culture-and-tolerence/

145

146

Andrade, M. S. (2009). The effects of English language proficiency on adjustment to university life. International Multilingual Research Journal, 3, 16-34.

Arthur, N. (2008). Counseling international students. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (6th ed., pp. 275-289). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Arthur, N., & Flynn, S. (2011). Career development influences of international students who pursue permanent immigration to Canada. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 11, 221-237.

Ashraf, T. A. (2018). Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Saudi Arabia: Struggles and Strategies. International Journal of English Language Education, 6 (1), 133-154.

Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: a cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bamford, K. W., & Mizokawa, D. T. (1991). Additive-Bilingual (Immersion) Education: Cognitive and Language Development. Language Learning, 41 (3), 413–429.

Bashshur, M. (2004). Higher Education in the Arab States. Beirut: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in the Arab States, 2004.

Beaver, B., & Tuck, B. (1998). The Adjustment of Overseas Students at a Tertiary Institution in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 33 (2), 167 - 79.

Beavers, H., Eaglin, J., Green, D., Nathan, G., & Wolve, K. (2002). From Theory to Practice: Behaviorist Principles of Learning and Instruction. The Office for Teaching and Learning Newsletter, 7 (2). Available online at http://www.otl.wayne.edu/newsltr.html.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson.

Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2001). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 25-40.

Bolton, K., & Graddol, D. (2012). English in China today. English Today, 28. 3-9.

Borkan, J. (2004). Mixed methods studies: A foundation for primary care research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2 (1), 4-6.

Boumova, V. (2008). Traditional vs. Modern Teaching Methods: Advantages and Disadvantages of Each. Master’s Diploma. Masaryk University Faculty of Arts.

Bradley, D., & Bradley, M. (1984). Problems of Asian students in Australia: Language, culture and education. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.

147

Bretag, T., Horrocks, S., & Smith, J. (2002). Developing Classroom Practices to Support NESB Students in Information System Courses: Some Preliminary Findings. International Education Journal, 3 (4), 57-69.

Broughton, G., et al. (1994). Teaching English as a Foreign Language. London: Routledge.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological learning theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Contributions of instructional innovation to understanding learning (pp. 289-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bruner, J. (1975). Studies in cognitive growth: A collaboration at the Center for Cognitive Studies. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Buckley, J. A., Kinzie, J., Kuh, G. D., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature. Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success.

Byrne, C. D. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in psychological distress. Dissertation Abstracts International. Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61 (11-B), 6126.

Cameron, B., & Meade, P. H. (2002). Supporting the transition to university of international students: Issues and challenges. Proceedings of the 6th Pacific Rim Conference on First Year Experience in Higher Education. Christchurch, 8–10 July, (CD).

Campbell, J., & Li, M. (2007). An Empirical Study of Asian Students’ Learning Experiences at a New Zealand University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12 (4), 375-396.

Campbell, J., & Li, M. (2008). Asian students’ voices: an empirical study of Asian students’ learning experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12 (4), 375–396.

Candlin, C. (1978). Teaching of English: Principles and an Exercise Typology. London: Langenscheidt London.

Carroll, J. B. (ed.) (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Boston: MIT Press.

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework. TQR, 21 (5), 811-830.

Chandler, D. (2002). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html

148

Chavez, M. (2001). Gender in Language Classroom. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Cheng, L., Myles, J., & Curtis, A. (2004). Targeting language support for non-native English- speaking graduate students at a Canadian university. TESL Canada Journal, 21 (2), 50- 71.

Cheng, R. & Erben, A. (2012). Language anxiety: experiences of Chinese graduate students at U.S. higher institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16 (5), 477–497.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

Choudaha, R., Orosz, K., & Chang, L. (2012). Not all international students are the same: Understanding segments, mapping behavior. World Education Services News and Reviews. http://www.wes.org/ewenr/PF/12aug/pffeature.htm

Choudhury S. (2013), Technological Mediation and Learner-centred English language Learning, ICT in Education International Electronic Journal, 1 (1), 10-14.

Chow, P. (2011). What International Students Think About U.S. Higher Education: Attitudes and Perceptions of Prospective Students in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. New York: Institute of International Education.

Chow, P., & Marcus, R. (2009). International students in the United States. International Higher Education, 55, 13-15.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed.). London: Routledge.

Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study Habits, Skills, and Attitudes: The Third Pillar Supporting Collegiate Academic Performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (6), 425-453.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The "movement" of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28 (3), 321–333.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2004). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Tashakkori, A., Jensen, K. D., & Shapley, K. L. (2003). Teaching mixed methods research: Practices, dilemmas, and challenges. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie

149

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 619–637). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cruz-Ferreira, M. (ed.) (2010). Multilingual Norms. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2011). Human Diversity in Education: An Integrative Approach. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Dabbous-Sensenig, D. (2002). The Arab World and The Challenge Of Introducing Gender- Sensitive Communication Policies. United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) Expert Group Meeting on “Participation and access of women to the media, and the impact of media on, and its use as an instrument for the advancement and empowerment of women” Beirut, Lebanon 12 to 15 November 2002.

D'Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication Inc.

De Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: from principles to Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon, Inc.

Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL, 34, 95-118.

Dillman D., Smyth J., & Christioan, L. M. (2009). Internet and Mixed-Mode Surveys. The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Disman, M. (1982). ESL and a new culture. TESL Talk, 13 (3), 71-8l.

Donald, J., & Denison, G. (1996). Evaluating Undergraduate Education: the Use of Broad Indicators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21 (1), 23-39.

Dornyei, Z. (2009). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2010). Saudi Arabian educational history: impacts on English language teaching. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3 (2), 136-145.

Emmitt, M., Pollock J., & Komesaroff, L. (2006). Language and Learning: An Introduction for Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

European Commission (2010). More and Better Education in Developing Countries: Annual Report. Retrieved in October, 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/SEC2010_0121_EN.pdf

150

Fan, S. (2010). Language Shock: A Challenge to Language Learning. The International Journal - Language Society and Culture, 31 (6), 42-51.

Faruk, G. (2013). English language teaching in Saudi Arabia: A world system perspective. Scientific Bulletin of the Politehnica University of Timioara. Transactions on Modern Languages, 12 (2), 73-80.

Faruk, G. (2014). Chinese and Saudi English Language Education Policies: A World System Perspective. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 11 (1), 1-8.

Fernandez, I., Carrera, P., Sanchez, F., Paez, D., & Candia, L. (2000). Differences between cultures in emotional verbal and non-verbal reactions. Psicothema (12), 83-92.

Finlay, L. (2008). Introducing phenomenological research. Retrieved from www.lindafinlay.co.uk

Finlay, L. (2009). Debating Phenomenological Research Methods. Phenomenology & Practice, 3 (1), 6-25.

Fischer, R. (2012). Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology for Societal Change and Development: Examples from Well-Being and Corruption Research. Psychology, 9, 23-42.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Homework and the Gradual Release of Responsibility: Making Responsibility Possible. English Journal, 98 (2), 40–45.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204 (6), 291- 295.

Ginkel, A. (2014). Additive Language Learning for Multilingual Settings. Technical Report, JBS International.

Glass, C. R. (2012). Educational Experiences Associated With International Students’ Learning, Development, and Positive Perceptions of Campus Climate. Journal of Studies in International Education. 16 (3), 228-251.

Glass, C. R., Buus, S., & Braskamp, L. A. (2013). Uneven experiences: What’s missing and what matters for today’s international students. Retrieved in September, 2014 from https://gpi.central.edu/supportDocs/Report-on-International-Students.pdf

Glewwe, P. & Kremer,M. (2005). Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries, CID Working Paper No. 122. Retrieved in September, 2014 from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/69344/1250186/version/1/file/122.pdf

151

Gnutzmann, C. (2000). Lingua franca. In: M. Byram (Ed.). The Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London: Routledge.

Goodman, K. S. (1989). Whole-language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 207-221.

Halualani, R.T., Chitgopekar, A.S., Morrison, J.H.T.A., & Dodge, P.S.W. (2004). Diverse in name only? Intercultural interaction at a multicultural university. Journal of Communication, 54, 270-286.

Hamilton, T. E. (1966). The Audio-Lingual Method in the University: Fad or Panacea? Hispania, 49 (3), 434-440.

Hanassab, S., & Tidwell, R. (2002). International students in higher education: Identification of needs and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6, 305-322.

Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting age. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400.

Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1977). A New Hypothesis for Reading Teacher Research: Both Teaching and Learning of Reading Are Theoretically Based. In Reading: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by P. David Pearson and J. Hansen. Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, S.C.: National Reading Conference.

Hayden, M. L. (2000). Factors that influence the college choice process for African American students. Master’s Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Hazen, H. D., & Alberts, H. C. (2006). Visitors or immigrants? International students in the United States. Population, Space and Place, 12, 201-216.

Heger, I. (2017). Understanding the Persistence of China's National College Entrance Examination: The Role of Individual Coping Strategies. Berliner China-Hefte/Chinese History and Society, 49. 113-133.

Heikinheimo, P. S., & Schute, J. C. M. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student view and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 399-406.

Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at University: The International Student Experience. International Education Journal, 5 (3), 344-351.

Hermagustiana, I. (2010).Cultural connotations in teaching vocabulary in EFL classroom. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/international/_images/Istanti%20Hermagustiana.pdf

Hernandez, T. A. (2010). The relationship among motivation, interaction and the development of second language oral proficiency in a study-abroad context. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (4), 600-617.

152

Hickey, R. (2012). Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hickmann, M. (2000). Linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism: some new directions. Linguistics, 38 (2), 410.

Hoff, J. G., & Paige, R. M. (2008). Operationalizing culture and language learning in education abroad programming. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad.

Hofstede, G. H. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London; New York,

Holmes, J. (1997). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Holmes, K., Rutledge, S., & Gauthier, L. (2009). Understanding the cultural-linguistic divide in American classrooms: Language learning strategies for a diverse student population. Reading Horizons, 49 (4), 285-300.

Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 294-307.

Horn, L., & Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence path through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of undergraduates 3 years after entering 4-year institutions. NCES 2001-163. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

House, K. E. (2012). On Saudi Arabia: Its People, past, Religion, Fault Lines and Future. Knopf, 142.

Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4 (1), 5–24.

Hu, H. (2007). China's foreign language policy on primary English education: From policy rhetoric to implementation reality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, IN.

Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2012). English language education in East Asia: some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33 (4), 345–362.

Humphries, R. (2011). Language Anxiety in International Students: How can it be overcome? Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 4 (2), 65‐77.

Huntley, H. (1993). Adult international students: problems of adjustment. (ERIC Document No. 355 886).

Hymes, D. H. (Ed.) (1974). Studies in the history of linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

153

Imamura M., Zhang Y. B., & Shim C. (2012). US host nationals’ attitudes toward Japanese: The role of communication and relational solidarity in the intergroup contact hypothesis. Asian Journal of Communication, 22, 584-600.

Institute of International Education (IIE) (2017). International Student Enrollment Trends, 1948/49-2016/17. Open Doors: Report on International Educational Exchange (Washington, DC: IIE, 2017).

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods, 18 (1), 3–20.

Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17 (42), 1-10.

Jacob, E. J., & Greggo, J. W. (2001). Using counselor training and collaborative programming strategies in working with international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29 (1), 73-88.

Jakob, A. (2001). On the Triangulation of Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Typological Social Research: Reflections on a Typology of Conceptualizing 'Uncertainty' in the Context of Employment Biographies, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2 (1).

Jaworski, A. (2005). Introduction: Silence in institutional and intercultural contexts. Multilingua, 24, 1–6.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-133.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Issues in analysis and interpretation. In Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed., pp. 157-173). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jule, A. (2004). Gender, Participation, and Silence in the Language Classroom: Sh-shushing the Girls. Palgrave: Houndmills.

Kachru, B. (1992). The Other Tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.

Kaczmarek, P. G., Matlock, G., Merta, R., Ames, M. H., & Ross, M. (1994). An assessment of international college student adjustment. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 241-247.

Kambutu, J., & Thompson, S. (2005). Exploring processes that help adult learners become culturally responsive. Journal of Adult Education, 34 (2), 6-19.

154

Kapur, D., & Crowley, M. (2008). Beyond the ABCs: Higher education and developing countries. Center for Global Development Working Paper no. 139. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Kasravi, J. (2009). Factors Influencing the Decision to Study Abroad for Students of Color: Moving Beyond the Barriers. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Kasten, W. C., & Dagistan, M. (2014). Conversation Partnerships: An Educational Tool for Cross-Cultural Understanding. Beyond Words, 2 (1), 29-53.

King, P. M. & Baxter, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46 (6), 571-592.

Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (eds.). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (219-242). Tonawanda, NY: Cromwell Press Ltd.

Kramsch, C. (1994). Foreign languages for a global age. ADFL Bulletin, 25 (1), 5-12.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krasner, I. (1999). The role of culture in language teaching. Dialog on Language Instruction, 13 (1-2), 79-88.

Kuper, A., Lingard, L., & Levinson, W. (2008). Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 337, a1035.

Kvale, S. (1996). Inter Views: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lam, A. (2002). English in education in China: policy changes and learners' experiences. World Englishes, 21 (2), 245-256.

Lange, D. L., & Paige, R. M. (Eds.) (2003). Culture as the core: Perspectives in second language education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf Theory Complex: A Critical Reconstruction. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Lee, D. S. (1997). What teachers can do to relieve problems identified by international students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 93-100.

Lehtonen, T. (2000). Awareness of strategies is not enough: How learners can give each other the confidence to use them. Journal of Language Learning, 9, 64–77.

155

LeVasseur, J. J. (2003). The Problem of Bracketing in Phenomenology. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (3), 408–420.

Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ perspectives on cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19, 167-185.

Li, M. (2010). EFL Teachers and English Language Education in the PRC: Are They Policy Makers? The Asia-Pacific Education researcher, 19 (3), 439-451.

Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative Research in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Liddicoat, A. J. & Scarino, A. (2009). Teaching and Learning Languages: A guide. Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Victoria: GEON Impact Printing Pty. Ltd.

Lin, L. (2002). English Education in Present-day China. ABD, 33 (2), 8-9.

Livingstone, K. (2008). Task-based language teaching as a suitable didactic method for the teaching and learning of second and foreign languages. Baraton Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2 (2), 63-75.

Lu, Z. (2003). An analysis of China’s foreign language policies and tentative suggestions. Journal of Basic English Education, 1, 6–12.

Ma, Q., & Kelly, P. (2009). Overcoming Hurdles to Chinese Students' Learning of English Lexis. New York: Routledge.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39, 251-275.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41, 85-117.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Investigating language class anxiety using the focused essay technique. Modern Language Journal, 75, 296-304.

Macrae, M. (2002). The Induction of International Students to Academic Life in the United Kingdom, in D. McNamara and R. Harris (eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning (pp. 127-143). London: Routledge.

Mandelbaum, D. G. (ed.) (1983). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality. California: University of California Press.

Margolis, F. S. (1982). Encouraging Spontaneous Speech in the Audiolingual Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 15, 127–131.

156

Marr, T. (2005). Language and the capital: A case study of English “Language shock” among Chinese students in London. Language Awareness, 14, 239-253.

Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mavondo, F. T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student satisfaction: Resources and capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14, 41-60.

McKee, A. (2003). Textual analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: what every teacher needs to unlearn. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. NCRCDSLL Educational Practice Reports, Paper EPR05.

Mehra, B. (2001). Research or personal quest: Dilemmas in studying my own kind. In B. M. Merchant & A. I. Willis (Eds.), Multiple and intersecting identities in qualitative research (pp. 69-82). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mehra, B. (2002). Bias in Qualitative Research: Voices from an Online Classroom. The Qualitative Report, 7 (1), 1-19.

Mehra, B. (2004). The cross-cultural learning process of international doctoral students: A case study in library and information science education. Dissertation Abstracts International, A66 (01), 12.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The Primacy of Perception. J. Edie (Ed. & Trans.). Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, L. M. (2000). Barriers to Meaningful Instruction for English Learners. Theory into Practice, 39 (4), 228-236.

Mirahmadi, H., Kaveh, J., & Nosratzadeh, H. (2011). Skill Acquisition Theory in Second Language Teaching: A Focus on Productive Skills. 2011 International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 26, 197-201.

Mitlin, D. & Satterthwaite, D. (2013). Urban Poverty in the Global South: Scale and Nature. New York: Routledge.

Montgomery, C. (2009). A decade of internationalization: has it influenced students' views of cross-cultural group work at university? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (3), 256-270.

Moores, L., & Popadiuk, N. (2011). Positive aspects of international student transitions: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 291-306.

157

Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What English language teachers need to know: Vol II: Facilitating learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Naffziger, D., Bott, J., & Mueller, C. (2008). Factors Influencing Study Abroad Decisions among College of Business Students. International Business: Research Teaching and Practice, 2 (1), 39–52.

NCTE ELL Task Force (2006). NCTE Position Paper on the Role of English Teachers in Educating English Language Learners (ELLs). Retrieved in May, 2014 from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teacherseducatingell

Nechifor, I. (1998). Culture, Economic Development, and the Third World. Studies and Reports of the Unit of Cultural Research and Management - No. 6 (UNESCO).

Nieto, C., & Booth, M. Z. (2010). Cultural Competence: Its influence on the teaching and learning of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14 (4), 406-425.

Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research (Doctoral dissertation). Tallinn Pedagogical University, Tallinn, Estonia.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 589-613.

NVIVO [Computer software]. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.qsrinternational.com/

Olivas, M., & Lee, C. (2006). Understanding stressors of international students in higher education: What college counselors and personnel need to know. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33 (3), 217-222.

Othman, F., & Shuqair, K. M. (2013). The Impact of Motivation on English Language Learning in the Gulf States. International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (4), 123-130.

Ozturgut, O., & Murphy, C. (2010). Literature vs. Practice: Challenges for International Students in the U.S. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22 (3), 374-385.

Paige, R. M., Jorstad, J., Siaya, L., Klein, F., & Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in language education: A review of the literature. In D. Lange, & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into the language education (pp. 173-236). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Pan, L. (2011). English language ideologies in the Chinese foreign language education policies: a world-system perspective. Language Policy, 10, 245-263.

158

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.

Peterson, D. M., Briggs, P., Dreasher, L., Horner, D. D., & Nelson, T. (1999). Contributions of international students and programs to campus diversity. New Directions for Student Services, Summer (86), 67-76.

Pewewardy, C.D., & Hammer, P.C. (2003). Culturally responsive teaching for American Indian students. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 482325)

Piaget, J. (1969) Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking.

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the Language Classroom: Research Perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1): 49-79.

Popadiuk, N., & Arthur, N. (2004). Counseling international students in Canadian schools. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 26, 125-145.

Population Reference Bureau (PRB) (2013). The World Youth Report. Retrieved in November, 2014 from http://www.prb.org/pdf13/youth-data-sheet-2013.pdf

Pranata, H., Foo-Kune, N., & Rodolfa, E. (2013). International Students: Supporting Their Transition to the United States. Retrieved October, 2014 from http://caps.ucdavis.edu/resources/international/InternationalStudent.pdf

Project Atlas (2016). A Quick Look at Global Mobility Trends: Top Host destinations, 2001 & 2016. Retrieved in September, 2017 from www.iie.org/projectatlas

Purdie, N. (2000). Students of Non-English Speaking Background. In K. Ray, D. Hill & B. Hemmings (Eds.), University and Diversity: Changing Perspectives, Policies and Practices in Australia, NSW: Keon Publications.

Qu, B. (2007). Changing English: Studies in Culture & Education. New York: Routledge.

Quintrell, N., & Westwood, M. (1994). The influence of a peer-pairing context on international students’ first year experience and the use of student services. Higher Education Research and Development, 13 (1), 49-57.

Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.

Ramberg R., & Karlgren K., (1998). Fostering Superficiality in Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), Special Issue, 14 (2), 1-2.

159

Ramburuth, P. (2001). Language diversity and the first-year experience: Implications for academic achievement and language skills acquisition. Journal of the First-Year Experience, 13 (2), 75-93.

Rautopuro, J., & Vaisanen, P. (2000). Keep the customer satisfied, a longitudinal study of students‘ emotions, experiences and achievements at the University of Joensuu, paper presented at the European Conference of Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20-23 September 2000.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 89-101.

Rolls, L., & Relf, M. (2006). Bracketing Interviews: Addressing Methodological Challenges in Qualitative Interviewing in Bereavement and Palliative Care. Mortality, 11 (3), 286–305.

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combing quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627– 643.

Roy, D. A. (1992). Saudi Arabia education: Development policy. Middle Eastern Studies. xxviii (3), 481-495.

Ruble R. A., & Zhang Y. B. (2011). Stereotypes of Chinese international students held by American students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 202-211.

Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). ‘Canaries in the coalmine’: International students in Western universities. In. J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sakthivel, T. (2003). Problems faced by overseas research students. Pharmacy Education, 3, 217-222.

Salkind, N. (2008). Cliques. Encyclopedia of educational psychology. Sage Publications.

Sanderson, G. (2006). Examination of a profile of the ideal lecturer for teaching international students. Flinders University, Adelaide.

Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.

160

Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.

Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (1), 207-220.

Scanlan, M. (2007). An asset-based approach to linguistic diversity. ACEI Focus on Teacher Education, 7 (3), 3-7.

Schein, E. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25 (2), 3–16.

Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Social relativism: A postmodernist epistemology for educational administration. In S. J. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration (pp. 17-46). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Schumann, J. (1981). The acculturation model for second -language acquisition. Library of Congress: Washington, D.C.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25). New York: Academic Press.

Senyshyn, R. M., Warford, M. K., & Zhan, J. (2000). Issues of adjustment to higher education: International students’ perspectives. International Education, 30 (1), 17-35.

Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), 395-403.

Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E. & Jeanne, Z. (2011). Research methods in psychology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Shohamy, E. (2007). Tests as Power Tools: Looking Back, Looking Forward. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, and C. E. Turner (eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 141-152). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double Work: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York – The challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Shu, D. (2004). FLT in China: Problems and suggested solutions. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Singaravelu, H., & Pope, M. (Eds.). (2007). A handbook for counseling international students in the United States. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

161

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. SimonandSchuster.com.

Skinner, B. F. (1976). About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage Publications.

Smithee, M. B., Greenblat, S. L., & Eland, A. J. (2004). U.S. Classroom Culture. Washington, DC: NAFSA, Association of International Educators.

Snow, D., & Campbell, M. (2017). More Than a Native Speaker: An Introduction to Teaching English Abroad. New York: TESOL Press.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd Edition), v11 - 372, London and New York: Continuum.

Steinberg, L. D. (2010). Adolescence (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning from experience and teaching by example: reflecting upon personal learning experience to inform teaching practice. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4 (1), 82-91.

Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Chang, R. (2002). What Questions Arise when Studying Cultural Universals in Depression? Lessons from Abnormal Psychology Textbooks. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 10 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1079

Tang, R. (1999). The Place of "Culture" in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Reflection. The Internet TESL Journal, 5 (8), www.homestead.com/ramonatang/home.html

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods, No. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Task Force on Higher Education and Society (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and Promise. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York: A. G. Seiler.

Thornton, A., & Lin, H. (1994). Social Change and the Family in Taiwan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tompson, H. B., & Tompson, G. H. (1996). Confronting diversity issues in the classroom with strategies to improve satisfaction and retention of international students. Journal of Education for Business, 72 (1), 53–7.

Triandis, H. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

162

Trice, A. (2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 379-403.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office (2014). Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) Quarterly report. Retrieved in October, 2014 from https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement

Verbik, L. & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International Student Mobility: Patterns and Trends. London: The Observatory on borderless higher education.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Mind and Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition. Comparative study of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 24 (2), 221-249.

Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (2004).The experiences of international students in New Zealand: Report on the results of the national survey, New Zealand Ministry of Edu., retrieved from www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=9939&data=l

Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. East Sussex, UK: Routledge.

Watson, D. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. In Whole Language [Special issue]. Elementary School Journal, 90 (2), 129-141.

Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012). A Comparison of Two Theories of Learning - Behaviorism and Constructivism as applied to Face-to-Face and Online Learning. E-Leader Manila. Retrieved September, 2014 from www.gcasa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf

Wei Chen, G. L., & Duanmu, J.-L. (2009). Determinants of international students’ academic performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 389-405.

Wei, R., & Su, J. (2012). The statistics of English in China. English Today, 28 (3), 10-14.

Wenfeng, W., & Gao, X. (2008). English Language Education in China: A Review of Selected Research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29 (5), 380-399.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1997). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge press.

Xie, Y. (2013). Gender and Family in Contemporary China. Population Studies Center Research Report 13-808. University of Michigan.

163

Xu, G. (2010). Understanding the role of interaction from linguistic, affective, and social perspectives. TESL Canada Journal, 27, 68-88.

Yeasmin, S., & Rahman, K. (2012). Triangulation' Research Method as the Tool of Social Science Research. BUP JOURNAL, 1 (1), 154-63.

Yefanova, D., Baird, L., & Montgomery, M. L. (2015). Study of the educational impact of international students in campus internationalization at the University of Minnesota. (Study No. 1312E46644). Minneapolis: Global Programs and Strategy Alliance at the University of Minnesota.

Young, D. J. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 439-445.

Younie, W. J. (1974). Instructional approaches to slow learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Yusoff, Y. M., & Chelliah, S. (2010). Adjustment in international students in Malaysian public university. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1, 275- 278.

Zangari, L. (1999). Conversation Partners: Work in Progress. Action Research. Monograph. ERIC Document (ED 440-238).

Zhai, L, (2002), Studying international students: Adjustment issues and social support, ERIC Document 474481.

Zhang, Y., & Mi, Y. (2010). Another Look at the Language Difficulties of International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14 (4), 371-388.

Zhou, Y., et al. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 33 (1), 63-75.

Zhu, W. & Flaitz, J. (2005). Using Focus Group Methodology to Understand International Students' Academic Language Needs: A Comparison of Perspectives. TESL-EJ, 8 (4).