Search

In research in cross-cultural psychology, international education is largely understood as an “adjustment” to host country norms and institutions, a notion that prioritizes social order and stability. The student is seen as in deficit in relation to these norms. The student’s home country identity becomes seen as a barrier to be broken down. In contrast, this article sees higher education, and within that international education, as a process of self-formation within conditions of disequilibrium in which student subjects manage their lives reflexively, fashioning their own changing identities, albeit under social circumstances largely beyond their control. International students form their self-trajectories somewhere between home country identity (which continues to evolve in the country of education), host country identity, and a larger set of cosmopolitan options. In piloting their pathways they draw on multiple identities and fashion new forms of hybrid identity. The article highlights the need for international education programs to strengthen the agency freedom of students, and its scope and resources, to facilitate this educational process of self-formation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

“International student security” refers to the international student’s maintenance of a stable capacity for self-determining human agency. The article focuses on the role of English-language proficiency in the security of students from English as Foreign Language countries, drawing on evidence from a program of semistructured interviews with 200 international students. The interviews show that language proficiency is a pervasive factor in the human security of the international students in all domains inside and outside the classroom. There is a strong link between language proficiency and the capacity for active human agency. Both findings confirm prior research literature. The article concludes with implications for practice and for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a study of international student security, consisting of 200 intensive interviews with students, resident onshore in Australia, it was found that two thirds of the group had experienced problems of loneliness and/or isolation, especially in the early months. According to Weiss, students experience both personal loneliness because of the loss of contact with families and social loneliness because of the loss of networks. Both forms of loneliness are at times exacerbated by their experiences in institutional sites. The article discusses the coping mechanisms that students use. It identifies a third kind of loneliness experienced by international students, cultural loneliness, triggered by the absence of the preferred cultural and/or linguistic environment. This can affect even students with adequate personal and social support. Thus, same-culture networks are often crucial for international students. Yet same-culture networks are not a universal panacea: They cannot substitute for adequate pastoral care by universities or ensure satisfactory engagement with local cultures, so some causes of cultural loneliness often remain. The article concludes that the creation of stronger bonds between international and local students in the educational setting, helping international students to remake their own cultural maps on their own terms, is key to a forward move on loneliness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of students cross national borders for their studies. An expanding global market in higher education has been created. Yet significant gaps exist in the governance of international students' rights. As well as being educational service beneficiaries, cross-border students are migrants, workers, consumers and human beings. A broader view of students, as individuals deserving of ‘social and economic security’, is superior to that which treats them as social protection subjects. Recognizing this multiple status, and utilizing in-depth data from 200 interviews with international students in Australia, the article finds that the existing social protection regime falls significantly short of recognizing students' rights. Problems are located in relation to language acquisition, social integration, finances, work and personal safety. The article argues that, as well as law and policy, a student security regime should incorporate better university practices and more integrated civil society networks and non-governmental organizations (NCX)s), and intergovernmental organization (IGO) coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]