1. Reasons for non-attendance at induction by international students
Claire O'Leary, University of Birmingham, July 2009

2. The idea behind the project proposal
Summary of outcomes
Methodology
Project timescales
Project challenges
Learning points for our own institution and others

3. What prompted the project proposal?
Explore preconceptions about induction held by certain specific groups of students
Identify ways in which our programme is unwittingly exclusive
Use the findings to improve inclusivity and to ensure that we are delivering an induction that is fit-for-purpose for today’s international students
Our area of interest lay in exploring the preconceptions that certain specific groups of students might have about organised international student-specific induction activities. We were concerned that the choice not to attend may be influenced by the fact that the programme offered is unwittingly exclusive of certain key groups. If this hypothesis is supported by the research, our recommendations may influence the marketing, design, content and mode of delivery of future induction programmes, thus improving the service provided to minority groups of students, which together make up a significant percentage of the international student cohort.
Claire O'Leary, ISAS

4. Summary of outcomes
Three student groups identified as being underrepresented:-
Postgraduate Taught and domiciled in the UK at admission.
Postgraduate Taught and domiciled in the EU at admission.
Postgraduate Research and domiciled in the EU, UK and non-EU at admission.
From the quantitative data we had gathered, we were able to define these three groups of students as being noticeably underrepresented at the induction programme offered free of charge to all new non-UK students in September 2008.
We were not surprised that it was predominantly PGT (with UK or EU domicile at admission) and PGR students (all domiciles) who were underrepresented. We were aware that our induction programme catered more for students with the greatest needs and we felt these to be undergraduates who had never studied/lived abroad before. PGT dom UK/EU likely to have studied in UK or EU previously and PGR likely to feel closer affiliation with their supervisor and academic department than with a centralised induction programme. Also backed up previous research cited in Broadening Our Horizons.
Ideally, we had wanted to look at PGR students with dependants as we felt that this would be a group with specific challenges which would prevent them from attending induction and yet, a group with additional support needs. However, our numbers were so small that it wouldn’t have been a valid group to investigate.

5. Summary of outcomes (2)
Survey showed ‘visa delays’ as main reason for non-attendance but not cited as key reason in focus groups
Survey also pointed to practical barriers to inclusion in induction:
Didn’t know about Welcome International/didn’t have enough information
Tickets for events were ‘sold out’
Not interested/too busy
There were some practical reasons for non-attendance, some of which we can do little to change eg visa delays. Others, such as improving our communications about our events, looking at supply and demand for places at events, we can improve on.

6. Summary of outcomes (3)
Preconception (theirs) - induction aimed at undergraduates and focuses solely on meeting practical/basic needs
Preconception (ours) – all students will suffer culture shock which will be unpleasant and stressful
Some assistance with geographical orientation and administrative formalities welcome
But would like more specialised induction pathways, recognising different start points and prior experience
Not looking to induction to help make friends but possibly useful contacts
A common preconception was that Welcome International was aimed at undergraduate students and/or sought to provide practical assistance in meeting basic needs only.
This was not attractive to students who, either because they had previously studied in the UK or because of their level of life experience and attitude towards the unfamiliar, did not feel they required this sort of basic support. Hence, they tended not to join the programme of activities and did not significantly regret this decision. This compounds the findings outlined in Broadening Our Horizons.[1]
[1] Merrick, B - Broadening Our Horizons – International Students in UK Universities and Colleges: Report of the UKCOSA survey (2004), page 42
Some of the postgraduate students said that they were not looking to induction events to help them to make friends, so this would seem to be a key point at which our ideas of the core benefits of induction diverge from those of some students. This view seemed to depend on a number of factors such as the student’s prior experience of living or studying abroad, their level of self confidence and maturity and the vision/goal they had for themselves their period of study. This picks up a theme highlighted by Leonard, Pelletier and Morley in their 2003 review, ‘The Experience of International Students in UK Higher Education’[1]:
“There is a huge diversity of cultural, linguistic, pedagogical, social and vocational backgrounds. People have widely different motivations for, and expectations of, studying abroad. And just as it is often unhelpful to see international students as having a common set of interests, issues and problems, so one should not switch these generalisations to easy sub-categorisations like country of origin.’
A female Nigerian PGT student told us:
“I would say no to networking events, I’m here to get my course done. Maybe people are coming to make friends, but I came very seriously. I was working, needed personal development and a career change. I wouldn’t have come one week earlier to meet some other postgraduate, who may or may not have any related work background”.
Another female PGR student, domiciled in the EU, reflected on her induction experience at Birmingham as an undergraduate, when she had attended a residential induction week for non-UK students (week -1 in the academic calendar). For this student, this style of ‘spoon-fed’ induction was frustrating and limiting; she was only meeting fellow European students. She felt much happier when she attended a ‘Freshers’ Week’ event in the Guild of Students which enabled her to mix with new UK students and learn about UK culture through these interactions. In her opinion:
“It’s up to the students to form (support) networks”.
For these students, our current ‘one-size fits-all’ Maslow’s hierarchy of needs approach clearly wasn’t of great benefit. They did not require assistance via the induction programme in meeting their more fundamental needs of finding shelter, food, a sense of belonging etc.
[1] Leonard, Pelletier, Morley – The Experience of International Students in UK Higher Education: a review of unpublished research’ (2003), page 18
Also, they had not experienced, or had problems with the experience of, cultural shock (as defined by Oberg[1]), which is a key consideration for us when we plan our international students’ induction. Oberg defined as cultural shock the physical and emotion reactions to “the anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse”. In our ISAS induction planning, we consciously strive to put in place support mechanisms to actively mitigate the types of culture shock symptoms described by Oberg.
Furnham argues that the suggestion that all people will suffer culture shock to some extent and that it is always unpleasant and stressful, needs to be empirically tested. He suggests that, “sensation-seekers… might be expected not to suffer any adverse effects but to enjoy the highly arousing stimuli of the unfamiliar”[2]. He also cites Adler[3] and David[4] who state that although culture shock is more often associated with negative consequences, it may, in mild doses, be important for self-development and personal growth.
It could be argued that these two students cited were well equipped to deal with the ‘stimuli of the unfamiliar’ and were looking to their induction to deliver something more in line with the ‘self-actualisation’ at the summit of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
For the first student previously quoted, this would have been some more functional networking with equally high-skilled postgraduates with a view to making meaningful contacts, with her career and personal development in mind. This is a step beyond the aspirations of our current induction provision, but one that deserves closer consideration.
The second student displayed a readiness and an eagerness to immerse herself more fully into UK life and culture from the very outset and did not expect or appear to require help with this transition. She was instantly ready to make multi-cultural bonds and did not need to progress through the stages of joining a ‘primary, monocultural network’ or ‘a secondary, bi-cultural network’ (Bochner[5]), which is something that we, in ISAS, tend to assume will be the most natural route for most international students, hence our lack of emphasis on integration with home students during our Welcome International programme.
[1] Oberg, J. - Cultural shock: adjustment to new cultural environments (Practical Anthropology, 7, 1960) ) in McNamara, D. and Harris, D. (Ed.) - Overseas students in higher education: issues in teaching and learning (Routledge, London, 1997)
[2] Furnham, A. - The experience of being an overseas student ibid., (1997)
[3] Adler, P. - The transition experience: an alternative view of culture shock (Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13-33, 1975) ibid., (1997)
[4] David, K. - Culture shock and the development of self-awareness (Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 4, 44-8, 1971) ibid., (1997)
[5] Bochner, S., McLeod, B., and Lin, A. - Friendship patterns of overseas students: a functional model (International Journal of Psychology, 12, , 1977) ibid., (1997)

7. Summary of outcomes (4)
PG students more likely to prioritise events led by their department
But dissatisfaction with the disconnect between centralised services and academic departments
Confusing and uncoordinated pre-arrival communications from different sections of the University made it difficult to know what was important to attend and what wasn’t.
Induction should not be limited to a week
Misconception that the international students’ induction programme was not free of charge
Postgraduate students were more likely to prioritise events led by their department over other general University/Guild of Students/ISAS events, particularly events relating to academic matters, such as briefings on study/research skills and library tours. However, despite having a stronger reliance on their academic departments, they commented that they could not always get the information they required from their departments in advance of their arrival and were dissatisfied by the disconnect between centralised services and departments - there seemed to be no one contact/service that could answer course/research specific queries, as well as more general new student queries. This did not inspire confidence about the level of support they could expect to receive if they were to attend their induction.
Confusing and uncoordinated pre-arrival communications from different sections of the University made it difficult to know what was important to attend and what wasn’t. Students wanted to know if there were academic or non-academic benefits to attending the various elements of the induction.
Need to hammer home the message about events that were offered free of charge.
Claire O'Leary, ISAS

8. Methodology and evaluation
Phase one – (quantitative) data gathered from a large sample of new international arrivals in 2008
Phase two – (qualitative) rich data gathered from a selective number of students via focus groups
Defining a sampling frame:
We identified students who had attended Welcome International ‘activities’. We divided activities into three categories: events; talks; campus and city tours
The research project undertaken by ISAS used a two-phase research design approach[1]. Phase one of the process involved using a quantitative approach to gather data from a large sample of students who were new international arrivals in Phase two involved using a qualitative approach to gather rich data from a selective number of students. The combination of methods enabled the research to gather data from a larger sample, alongside the ability to use progressive focusing to identify key issues from the quantitative data and discuss these issues in more depth with a selective sample in the focus groups.
The data in the quantitative survey provided general insights into the reasons for non-attendance at the induction and enabled us to accurately isolate the groups of non-attendees, whilst the qualitative data from the focus groups provided insights into the reasons for non-attendance and enabled participants to give fuller descriptions of their views and subsequently enabled us to explore meaning.
[1] Creswell, J. - Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Sage, London, 1994)Defining a sampling frame
We identified students who had attended Welcome International ‘activities’. We divided activities into three categories:
Events
Talks
Campus and city tours
(We deliberately decided not to include participation in our airport collection service as a relevant induction activity as we did not think this was in any way a developmental element of the induction programme).

9. Methodology and evaluation (2)
Total number of students who attended at least one category of activity was 908.
Total number of new non-UK students at the University was 2,523.
Demographics were identified as age, gender, nationality, country of domicile and level of study.
Cross tabulations of all of the combinations of the non–attendees by level of study (UG, PGT, PGR) and by country of domicile at admission (UK, EU (non-UK) and non-EU).
The total number of students identified as attending at least one category of activities was This could be broken down as follows:
548 students attended one category of activity
267 students who attended two categories of activity
93 students who attended three categories of activity
The total number of new non-UK students at the University was 2,523.
The demographics were identified as age, gender, nationality, country of domicile and level of study.
Cross tabulations were run of all of the combinations of the non–attendees by level of study (UG, PGT, PGR) and by country of domicile at admission (UK, EU (non-UK) and non-EU).
Claire O'Leary, ISAS

10. Methodology and Evaluation (3)
Survey sent to all non-UK students in the sample
419 students responded
A statistical software programme was used to analyse the data
Conducted four focus groups with 16 participants drawn from the groups identified as underrepresented and also held a focus group with a mixed group of attendees from over represented groups.
Survey
We analysed the ‘sign-up’ sheets that we had asked all students to complete for each of our Welcome International events 2008 (excluding our airport collection service). We discounted those who had attended more than one of our activities (we deemed them to be attendees) - by cross-referencing our sign-up sheet information with the total list of new non-UK starters as of October 2008.
A survey was then sent to all new non-UK students with specific questions about induction aimed at our non-attendees. 419 students responded. From the sign-up sheet up information and the survey, we were able to identify the 3 groups who were particularly underrepresented. A statistical software programme (SPSS) was used to analyse the data.
Focus groups
Focus groups were conducted with a selected number of survey respondents. We conducted four focus groups with 16 participants drawn from the groups identified as underrepresented and we also held a focus group with a mixed group of attendees.
The key themes drawn from the survey that informed the questions for the focus group were:
Reasons for non-attendance at Welcome International in general.
Reasons for non-attendance at specific events of Welcome International.
We chose to use a semi-structured approach[1] in the focus groups to allow an opportunity for participants to share their experiences and discuss common elements and challenge each others’ perceptions.
[1] Kitzinger, J. - The Methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants (Sociology of Health and Illness, Volume 16 Number 1) (1994)

11. Project Timescale Recruited our research assistant in August 2008
Started the project in September 2008
Submitted the final report in June 2009.
Claire O'Leary, ISAS

12. Project Challenges
Recruitment of suitably experienced staff with necessary availability to help run project
Timing of the project – coincides with very busy time of year for all working in International Student Advice.
Launch of Tier 4
Initially, we had planned to find a student or post-doctoral member of staff with research experience who would have the time and ability to take on the majority of the research, once we, as project managers, had drawn up a project action plan. Unfortunately, this wasn’t possible. However, we did manage to recruit an international first year PhD student as our research assistant, but there were obvious limits on her time and research experience. As a consequence, the project managers had to take on far more of the research work, in addition to their core work, which meant we completed the project under budget, but at significant cost in terms of core staff time.
Good idea to have staff who will support you on a project lined up and ready when you submit your proposal.

13. Learning points
It is useful to look at the split of one’s international student population - it may be that a ‘one-size fits-all’ approach still benefits majority
Need to also focus on the upper echelons of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – PGT and PGR students looking for something more value-added/aspirational
Universities should seize the opportunity for more collaborative working – to deliver a far richer induction experience to students of all study modes and backgrounds
Generally, we are doing a good job for the majority of the most vulnerable students.
We could and should do more and do it differently for our PGT and PGR students.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs –
Apex Self-actualisation
Next rung: esteem needs: self-esteem, recognition, status
Next rung: social needs: sense of belonging, love
Next rung: safety needs: security, protection
Bottom: physiological needs: hunger, thirst
Universities should seize the opportunities afforded to it by more collaborative working – sections such as ISAS, working in relative isolation, cannot deliver all things to all students. If ISAS, with its considerable experience in intercultural issues particularly during this key period of transition, were to join forces with the Guild of Students, the Graduate School, Careers and Employability and with induction champions in Schools and Colleges, it would succeed in making use of the expertise and credibility of these other sections, and deliver a far richer experience to students of all study modes and backgrounds.

14. Learning points (2)
university-policy level decision needed on attendance at induction - compulsory or not ? (Visa letters/sponsor agreements)
Overarching lead required for clear induction messages – linking centralised services with academic departments
Greater access to information communicated during induction - self-guided inductions, pod casts, blogs etc., of benefit to September starters and the significant number of PGR students without September start dates.
The lack of an overarching lead on induction for the whole of the University, which would coordinate the various strands (academic, non-academic) and rationalise communications, means that a lot of students are turned off induction because of uncoordinated and untargeted messages about it. Greater coordination on induction matters across the University and Guild of Students is already underway at Birmingham.
For PGT and PGR students, the lack of coordination between the academic and the non-academic sections of the University is a source of frustration and confusion. At Birmingham, the creation of new Graduate Schools or Centres within each College may help to streamline communication between the academic and administrative sides of the University.