THE GRADUATE EXPERIENCE OF MEXICAN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN US
DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

By
Gloria Gabriela Tanner

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
THE GRADUATE EXPERIENCE OF MEXICAN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN US
DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
By
Gloria Gabriela Tanner
Although extensive research on the experience of international students in American
higher education exists, little research has been done on international students from Latin
America. Latin American students represent the second largest group of international students in
the United States by world region after Asia (Institute of International Education, 2009). In
addition, while international graduate students represent 41 % of all international students in the
U.S., there is a lack of information about their experiences in American institutions. Most of the
research discusses international students as one, single classification and does not differentiate
between different nationalities (Kagan & Cohen, 1990; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). However,
the country of origin likely plays a key role in how international students adjust to life in the
United States. Experiences of international students need to be examined based on their
nationality and not region (Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002). This study aims to expand the little
research on international graduate students from Latin America by looking at international
doctoral students from Mexico. The research looks at the cultural adjustment of Mexican
doctoral students in American institutions and focuses on how country of origin (and
destination), gender, discipline and social class affect Mexican doctoral student’s cultural
adjustment. The following questions are addressed: What factors affect the acculturation of
Mexican doctoral students? and Does the degree of acculturation differ by gender, academic
discipline, destination, and social class?

For this study a model was constructed following Berry’s model of acculturation (1997).
The data was organized to include variables regarding the student’s academic experience,
cultural experience and personal experience. To measure acculturation, this model included
seven outcomes and eleven predictors. This study used quantitative methodology to collect data
utilizing a web-based survey. The target population for this study was Mexican doctoral students
sponsored by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) in US institutions.
235 Mexican doctoral students in the U.S. responded, a response rate of 52%.
Among the findings in this research, I found similarities in the acculturation experience
of international students and Mexican doctoral students. However, the findings also showed that
there were experiences better examined through the student’s nationality rather than a single
group that included all international students. The findings from this study are meaningful for
Mexican doctoral students in the United States, The CONACYT program, The Mexican
government, The U.S. government, American institutions and post-secondary institutions around
the world. On the one hand, Mexican doctoral students can gain insight into the challenges their
colleagues have. The findings of this study can also increase the sense of belonging of Mexican
doctoral students to a group that could enable them to share their experiences, network and
enrich their participation as a Mexican doctoral student in the United States. On the other hand,
international sponsorship programs, the Mexican government, the U.S. government, American
institutions and other higher education institutions around the world can learn from the findings
how they can better support this understudied population to help them succeed in their doctoral
programs. There should be a shared responsibility not only to the doctoral students, but
international sponsorship programs and American institutions to create the best environment for
students to succeed.

Copyright by
GLORIA GABRIELA TANNER
2013

Dedication

To my husband Paul E. Tanner, and to my daughters Maya Sofia and Ximena Paulette. Your
lives have enlightened mine and given me the ability to finish this journey.
To my parents, Socorro Puente Ledesma and the late Roberto Borjas Rodriguez. All I am and
what I accomplish I do it to honor you.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A flight from Torreon, Mexico to Lansing, Michigan in December of 2005 was the
beginning of my journey in the United States. Then, in the fall of 2007, I started my journey in
the Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education doctoral program to learn about American and
international education and also to understand better ways to serve international students.
Michigan State University has given me so much. I was able to get professional experience
through my job as the first Coordinator of Diversity Programming in James Madison College and
valuable educational experience through the doctoral program at the MSU College of Education.
Through my journey at Michigan State University, I was able to meet extraordinary people that
helped me in my adaptation to the United States and the academic environment. These people
continue to be role models today. During this journey I have moved from Michigan to Merida,
Mexico, back to Michigan, then to Maryland, then on to Virginia.
First, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, academic advisor and chair of
my guidance committee, Professor Jim Fairweather. I am thankful for his advice, guidance and
understanding. I could not have finished this dissertation without the support of professor
Fairweather. I would also like to thank the rest of the members of my dissertation committee,
Professor Reitu Mabokela, Professor Kriss Renn and Professor John Kerr. Thank you for your
support and encouragement throughout my doctoral program.
Also, I would like to recognize the support of the Mexican doctoral students who
participated in this study. Doctoral students have many responsibilities with school, work,
family, research and the dissertation and very little time to dedicate to other things. I am very
grateful to the students who took the time to answer my survey. I am particularly thankful for
those participants who sent me emails of encouragement.
vi

I would like to acknowledge the support of the CONACYT program that sponsored part
of my doctoral program and Michigan State University College of Education through the
Summer Research Fellowship, the EAD Doctoral Research Grant, and the Dissertation
Completion Fellowship that helped me to keep going and finish my program.
This work could not be possible without the support of my family, friends and colleagues.
To my parents-in-law, Linda and Paul Tanner, that in the last part of my dissertation provided
loving care to my two daughters while I spent all day at the library. Above all, I know that they
really enjoyed being with my girls and gave the girls a summer with their grandparents they will
never forget. To the people from the Weedsport, N.Y. library, who always tried to accommodate
me so I could have a quiet place to work.
To my friends from Michigan, especially Elena Sierra, Delia Castaneda, Rocio Escobar,
Lily Ortiz and Alejandra Bernal. Thank you for your encouragement and support and thank you
for always being there for me and my family. To David Reyes-Gastelum, the consultant from
MSU CSTATS. Thank you for your guidance, advice, patience and flexibility.
I would also like to thank my brother and sister, who always had words of
encouragement; and to my mother, who represents a role model for me and who offered the best
she could to me and my siblings.
Finally and most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the support and love of my
husband, Paul Tanner, who always believed I would finish this journey even when I had doubts.
His encouragement was essential to keep me going. And to my two daughters, Maya and
Ximena, who were born while I was taking my doctoral courses and who made this journey even
more interesting and enjoyable. They were also the reason why I continued and finished because
I wanted to be a role model who would make you proud.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………....xii

LIST OF FIGURES………….………………..…………………………..……………….....xiv
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………….………………………………………………..1
Landscape of International Students in the U.S.………………………..………….…...,..………2
Contributions of International Students ……………………………….………………………....3
Economic Benefit…………………………………………………………………………3
Social-Cultural Impact……………………………………………………………………4
Academic Impact………………………………………………………………………….5
Problem Statement………………………….…………………………………………………….6
Context…………………………………………………………………………………………....9
Mexican National Council of Science and Technology………………………………....10
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………………………….…11
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………………...11
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………...12
Research Design and Overview of the Methodology…………………………………..…….….13
Dissertation Structure………………………………………….…………………..……………..13
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………..………….15
The Concept of Acculturation…………………..…………………………………….……….…15
Acculturation in the Context of International Students………………………………….15
The Acculturation Model……..……………………………….………………………………....16
Inclusive Model of Acculturation………………………………………………………..16
Berry’s Acculturation Framework……………………………………………………….19
The Interactive Acculturation Model…………………………………………………….22
International Students’ Adjustment Experience……….....………………………………...……24
Common Adjustment to International Students…………….……………………..………….…25
Language Barriers………………………………………………………………………..25
Academic Stress………………………………………………………………………….26
American Educational System Methods…………………………………………………26
Differences in Teaching and Learning Style…………………………………………….27
Factors Associated to International Graduate Students’ Academic Performance…..………...…27
English Proficiency………………………………………………………………………27
Interaction with Faculty and Peers……………………………………………………….28
Social Interaction……………………………………………………………………...…29
Attitudes towards Learning and Study Strategies………………………………………..29
Self-Efficacy Beliefs……………………………………………………………………..30
Previous Academic Performances……………………………………………………….30
Predictors of Doctoral Success…………………………………………………………………..30
viii

Mentorship……………………………………………………………………………….31
Student’s Involvement with the Academic Environment………………………………..32
Financial Support……………………………………………………………………...…32
Graduate Student’s Relationship with Members of the Faculty…………………………33
Summary of Chapter……………………………………………………………………………..34
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………..….36
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………………..36
Dependent Variables……………………………………………………………………..36
Independent Variables………………………………………………………………...…37
Building the Construct of Acculturation…………..………………………………………..…...37
Research Design…………………………………………………………………………………39
Pre-test………………………………………………………………………………………..…40
The Sample………………………………………………..…………………………………….40
Mexican Students Abroad Sponsored by CONACYT………………………………………….41
Instrument…………………………………………………………………………………….….42
Data Collection……………..…………………………………………………………………....43
Process of Gathering Contact Information from Mexico CONACYT-Sponsored Doctoral
Students in the United States…….………………………………………………………………44
Survey Response Rates……………….………………………………………………………….45
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………….45
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS…………….………………………………………………..….47
Description of the Sample……………………………………………………………………….47
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………………57
The Construct of Acculturation………………………………………………………………….57
Means and Standard Deviations of the Outcomes……..………………………………………...59
Relationship among the Different Outcomes…….……………………………………………...60
Academic Satisfaction…………………………………………………………………...61
Attitudes…………………………………………………………………………………62
Integration………………………………………………………………………………..62
Student’s Relationship with Academic Advisor…………………………………………63
Summary…………………………………………………………...…………………….63
Comparison of Outcomes by Demographics………………..…………………………………...64
Comparison of Male and Female Mexican Doctoral Students………………………….64
Comparison of Public Institutions and Private Institutions…………………………...…66
Comparison of English Proficiency…………………………………………………...…67
Analysis of Variance………..……………………………………………………………………69
Academic Discipline……………………………………………………………………..69
Discrimination……………………………………………………………………………70
Father’s Level of Education……………………………………………………………...72
Social Support……………………………………………………………………………73
The Relative Importance of the Predictors for Each of the Outcomes……………………..……74
Academic Satisfaction…………………………………………………………………...74
Attitudes…………………………………………………………………………………76
Integration………………………………………………………………………………..77
ix

Strategies…………………………………………………………………………………78
Student’s Relationship with American Students…………………………………………80
Student’s Relationship with Academic Advisor…………………………………………81
Student’s Relationship with Professors………………………………………………….82
Other Factors in the Findings……………..…………………………………………………...…85
Cultural Influence from other Countries…………………………………………………85
Complexity of the Relationship with Academic Advisor………………………………..85
Source of Funding……………………………………………………………………….87
Family…………………………………………………………………………...……….88
Chapter Summary……………..……………………………….………………………………...90
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS………………………………..…90
Overview of the Study…………………………..…………………………………...…………..90
Discussion of the Results……………..……………………………………………………….....91
English Proficiency………………………………………………………………………91
Discrimination…………………………………………………………………………....92
Social Support……………………………………………………………………………93
Type of Institution…………………………………………………………………….…98
Father’s Level of Education……………………………………………………………...99
Mother’s Level of Education…………………………………………………………….99
Academic Discipline……………………………………………………………………100
Academic Satisfaction………………………………………………………………….101
Attitudes…………………………………………………………………………..........102
Integration………………………………………………………………………………103
Strategies………………………………………………………………………………..104
Student’s Relationship with Academic Advisor………………………………………..104
Student’s Relationship with other Professors…………………………………………..105
Student’s Relationship with American Students……………………………………….105
Summary of the Findings……………..………………………………………………………..106
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………...…108
Implications for this Study……………………………………………………………………...109
Implication for Practice………………………………………………………………....109
Implication for Policy………………………………………………………………..…110
Future Research………..……………………………………………………………………….111
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………....112
Recommendations Addressing the Research Questions………………………………..112
Recommendations Drawn from the Literature Review………………………………...113
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...115
APPENDICES………..……………………………………………………………………….118
APENDIX A-Initial email to participants ….………………………………………….118
APENDIX B- The survey……………………..………………………………….…….120
APENDIX C-Distribution of participant’s institution…..…………………….………..129
REFERENCES…………..……………………………………………………………………133
x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1
Relational outcomes of host community and immigrant acculturation orientations:
The interactive acculturation Model (IAM)…………………………………………….22
Table 3.1

Outcomes……………………………………………………………….……….38

Table 3.2

Predictors………………………………………………………………………..39

Table 4.1

Frequency table of gender……………………………………………………….47

Table 4.2

Chi-square analysis for gender…………………………………………………..48

Table 4.3

Frequency table of ager…………………………………………………………..48

Table 4.4

Frequency table of marital status………………………………………………...49

Table 4.5

Frequency table of participants’ parental status………………………………….49

Table 4.6

Frequency table of years in the United States……………………………………50

Table 4.7

Participants’ academic year ……………………………………………………..50

Table 4.8

Participants’ institution by Carnegie classification………………………………51

Table 4.9

Chi-square analysis for Carnegie classification………………………………….52

Table 4.10

Participants’ institution by public and private…………………………….……..52

Table 4.11

Chi-square analysis for public/private institution…………………………….….52

Table 4.12

Participants’ institution by geographic distribution………………………….…..53

Table 4.13

Chi-square analysis for institution by geographic distribution…………….…….53

Table 4.14

Frequency table of participants’ academic discipline…………………………....54

Table 4.15

Participants’ experience studying abroad……………………………………..…55

Table 4.16

Frequency table of participants’ doctoral program GPA……………………..….55

Table 4.17

Frequency table for participants’ mother educational level………….……..……56

Table 4.18

Frequency table of participants’ father educational level…………………….….56

Table 4.19

Frequency table of participants’ parents experience studying abroad…………...57

Table 4.20

Operationalizing the variables…………………………………………….……..58

xi

Table 4.21

Means and standard deviation for the outcomes………………………..……….59

Table 4.22

Intercorrelation analysis of the seven outcome variables………………….……60

Table 4.23

Comparison of male and female Mexican doctoral students……………………65

Table 4.24
Comparison of type of institution on the acculturation of Mexican doctoral
students……………………………………………………………………………….…66
Table 4.25
Comparison of English proficiency on the acculturation of Mexican doctoral
students………………………………………………………………………………….68
Table 4.26

One way ANOVA summary for academic discipline…………………………...70

Table 4.27

One way analysis of variance summary table comparing discrimination……..…71

Table 4.28

One way analysis of variance comparing father’s level of education…………...72

Table 4.29

One way analysis of variance comparing social support………………………...73

Table 4.30
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting academic
satisfaction (N= 193)………………………………………………………………….…75
Table 4.31
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting attitudes
(N=192)…………………………………………………………………………….……76
Table 4.32
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting integration
(N=193) …………………………………………………………………………………76
Table 4.33
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting strategies
(N=192)……………………………………………………………………………….…79
Table 4.34
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting student’s
relationship with American students (N = 193)…………………………………………80
Table 4.35
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting student’s
relationship with academic advisor (N = 193)…………………………………………..81
Table 4.36
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting student’s
relationship with professors……………………………………………………………...83
Table 4.37

Predictors and outcomes…………………………………………………………84

Table C.1

Frequency by institution………………………………………………………..129

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1

The Inclusive Acculturation Model………………………………………….…18

Figure 2.2

Berry’s Acculturation Framework………………………………………………21

xiii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The twenty-first century has brought a changing global environment that offers
opportunities as well as potential challenges to post-secondary education around the world
(Duderstadt, 2000). The World Bank report entitled “Constructing knowledge societies: New
challenges for tertiary education” (2002) states that the most important contemporary changes in
the global environment are “the increasing importance of knowledge as a driver of growth in the
context of the global economy, the information and communication revolution, the emergence of
a worldwide labor market, and global sociopolitical transformations” (pp. 7). American higher
education has also been impacted by the global environment of the twenty-first century, leading
to the internationalization of the U.S. higher education (Leveille, 2006; Zusman, 2005). As we
move to a more global community, the international competencies of higher education must
become one of the first priorities for American institutions to prepare professionals with global
knowledge (Duderstardt, 2000). Internationalization in the context of higher education is defined
by Altbach and Knight (2007) as “the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and
institutions—and even individuals—to cope with the global academic environment” (pp.290).
International students and study abroad comprise the dominant activities in internationalization
in higher education (Knight, 1999). More specifically, the internationalization of American
higher education has seen the economic, academic, and socio-cultural impact on American
academia and society of international students attending US institutions (Institute of International
Education, 2011; The National Academies, 2005). Given the importance of international students
in the process of internationalizing American higher education, this study focuses on the current

1

status of an understudied part of this population in the United States, doctoral students from
Mexico.
Landscape of International Students in the U.S.
Since World War II, the number of international students in US higher education has
grown rapidly. As we move to a more global society this trend has accelerated. Today, the
United States is the leading host country for international students, enrolling more than 720,000
students of which 41% are pursuing degrees in graduate school (Institute of International
Education, 2011). Although male international students outnumber female international students,
the participation of female international students in American institutions has increased
substantially (Institute of International Education, 2000). In 1978, only 26% of international
students were women; however, by the year 2000, females comprised 46.7% of all international
undergraduate students and 37.8% of all international graduate students (Institute of International
Education, 2000). 85.6% of international students in the U.S. hold an F-1 visa (Institute of
International Education, 2000), which indicates full-time student status (U.S. Department of
State, 2010).
International students in the US represent over 200 nationalities hosted by 3,000
American institutions in higher education (Institute of International Education, 2011). China is
the leading place of origin for international students in the U.S. with 157,558 in 2010/11. India is
in second place with 103,895. Meanwhile, South Korea is the third leading country with 73,351
and Canada is in fourth place with 27,546. Rounding out the top places of origin are Taiwan,
Saudi Arabia, Japan, Vietnam and Mexico at fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respectively
(Institute of International Education, 2011).

2

Among the top ten most popular fields of study for international students in the U.S. in
2010/11 were Business and Management with 21.5% of total, Engineering with 18.7% and
Mathematics and Computer Science with 8.9%. Physical and Life Sciences followed with 8.8%,
Social Sciences with 8.8%, Fine & Applied Arts at 5.1%, Health Professions with 4.5%,
Intensive English Language at 4.5%, Education 2.3%, and Humanities with 2.2% (Institute of
International Education, 2011).
Contributions of international students
The contributions of international students in U.S. higher education have a positive
impact not only academically, but economically, socially and culturally (Institute of International
Education, 2011; The National Academies, 2005).
Economic Benefit
International students contributed $21 billion to the U.S. economy in 2011 through their
tuition and living expenses (Institute of International Education, 2011). Higher education in the
United States is becoming one of the largest service sectors of exportation as international
students fuel the country and individual host states’ economies with expenses in room and board,
health services, family expenses and transportation (Institute of International Education, 2011).
To give some examples of the economic impact in a single state, international students
contributed $ 2,992 million in the State of California, $ 2,431.3 million in the state of New York,
and $ 705.7 million in the State of Michigan (Institute of International Education, 2011).
International students vary in their source of financial support. About 69.2 % of all
international students funding comes from sources outside of the United States; 63.4 %
represents the students’ family and personal resources and 5.8 % represents the students’
country’s government (Institute of International Education, 2011). American institutions have

3

benefited from international students’ tuition. Thus, there is clearly a positive economic impact
of the resources that international students bring to the United States through undergraduate and
graduate education.
Socio-cultural impact
In addition to the economic contribution, there is a socio-cultural impact of international
students in the U.S. and in their return to their home country. International students constitute a
diverse population that helps to enrich the university culture and allows Americans to
successfully function as multicultural agents (Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002). International students
not only interact with faculty and students in the classroom leading to increased cross-cultural
learning, they also engage in activities with the community outside the university. These
relationships can lead to a better understanding of global issues in the community at large (The
National Academies, 2005; Andrade, 2006).
Further, international students foster goodwill among nations and are crucial in
maintaining positive international relations. One example of this regards students’ experiences in
American institutions. A number of prominent world leaders from other countries have
participated in educational exchange programs in the U.S. such as former French president
Jacques Chirac, former Mexican president Vicente Fox and former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair (The National Academies, 2005). Former President Bush stated the importance of such
exchange programs during International Education Week in 2001: “The relationships that are
formed between individuals from different countries, as part of international education programs
and exchanges, can also foster goodwill that develops into vibrant, mutually beneficial
partnership among nations” (Bush, 2001). The socio-cultural impact of international students

4

continues after they return to their home countries and also leads to a better understanding of the
American culture (Peterson, Briggs, Dreasher, Horner, & Nelson, 1999).
The presence of international students at American institutions contributes to a greater
understanding of other cultures. Interaction with international students is one of the most
effective strategies to improve American undergraduates’ understanding of global issues (Bok,
2006). According to the National Agenda for Internationalizing Higher Education, American
students increase their cross-cultural sensitivity and adaptability interacting with individuals with
different background and culture and this cultural competence is becoming important in the
United States and other countries as part of student’s abilities (NASULGC, 2007).
Academic impact
International students have a positive impact on research and innovation in the academic
setting. Some of these efforts generate economic growth through innovations in industry and
business in the U.S. (The National Academies, 2005). Through high quality research and
programs, the U.S. has been able to attract the brightest students in different disciplines from
other countries to American universities. Talented international students in science and
engineering have made significant contributions in high-technology firms, business, universities,
laboratories and other sectors in society that otherwise could not be possible (Stephan & Levin,
2005). Research has shown differences in the performance level of international and domestic
Science and Engineering graduate researchers in the United States, claiming that as a group
international graduate researchers were constantly more productive than their domestic
colleagues (The National Academies, 2005). In some fields such as science and engineering,
international students constitute half of the population of graduate students and postdoctoral
scholars. Many of these international scholars make an important contribution to research in the

5

United States (The National Academies, 2005). In addition, international students contribute to
classroom instruction. International students teach many required courses in American
institutions, especially in fields such as foreign languages, science and engineering (Peterson,
Briggs, Dreasher, Horner, & Nelson, 1999). Finally, these benefits also accrue to the home
countries of international students as they bring their talents and experiences with them (Johnson,
2002).
Problem statement
Although extensive research on the experience of international students in American
higher education exists, little research has been done on international students from Latin
America who represent the second largest group of international students in the United States by
world region after Asia (Institute of International Education, 2009). In addition, although
international graduate students represent 41 % of all international students in the U.S., there is a
lack of information about their experience in American institutions. Most of the research
discusses international students as a single classification and does not differentiate between
different nationalities (Kagan & Cohen, 1990; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). However, the country
of origin likely plays a key role in how international students adjust to life in the United States.
Experience of international students needs to be examined based on their nationality and not
region (Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002). Furthermore, even though the number of female
international students in the United States has also increased (Institute of International
Education, 2000), little research on international students has been done to recognize distinctions
of educational experiences between male and female international students pursuing doctoral
programs in American institutions. More research needs to be done to look at the experience of
graduate students from Latin America.

6

The study of international students in the U.S. draws from fields such as education,
psychology, sociology and student affairs. Researchers on the topic of international students look
at the term international students as “a group of individuals who temporarily reside in a country
other than their country of citizenship in order to participate in international educational exchange as
students” (Lin & Yi, 1997). Researchers also utilize the term foreign students to refer to

international students.
One of the variables researched by the different disciplines is the cultural adjustment of
international students in the U.S. The term cultural adjustment of international students refers to
the process of multiple factors distinguished by different behavioral, cognitive, affective and
demographic attributes and by different levels, varying from cultural assimilation (Kagan and
Cohen, 1990). Literature also uses the term acculturation to explain the cultural adjustment of
international students. Acculturation is viewed as an individual process which depends on
different personal, psychological and background factors (Nilsson & Doods, 2006). Both terms,
cultural adjustment and acculturation, connect an individual process to multiple factors to
explain the student’s cultural adaptation to the dominant culture. For this study, the terms of
cultural adjustment and acculturation will be used interchangeably.
A shortcoming on the research of the cultural adjustment of international students is that
it only focuses primarily on undergraduates (Kagan & Cohen, 1990). Moreover, the few studies
of graduate students do not differentiate between master’s and doctoral students. For these
reasons I have relied initially on the literature related to the experience of international
undergraduate students to examine cultural adjustment.
International students face a difficult cultural adjustment as they have to adapt not only to
the American higher education system, but also to the new language and social and educational
culture (Sensyshyn, Warfortd, & Zhan, 2000). This adjustment may affect the student’s academic
7

performance, psychological well-being, and retention (Poyrazli, & Grahame, 2007). Further, this
topic has gained increased significance after the events of September eleventh, as the
immigration laws changed and new adjustments and experiences appeared. After the event of
9/11, the U.S. government increased the scrutiny to foreigners with stricter visa rules to get into
the country and computerized systems to monitor international student in the U.S. (Poyrazli &
Grahame, 2007).
There are common cultural adjustments among all international students. Nevertheless,
the research needs to distinguish adjustments not only by region of origin (and destination), but
by country, by gender, by discipline and by social class. For example, a Mexican female student
would have a radically different experience if she had studied at the University of Texas-El Paso
than if she had studied at the University of Illinois since University of Texas-El Paso has a high
percentage of Mexicans and Spanish speakers in its student body. Further, an international
student from England studying in the US would have a different experience, and likely
substantially less linguistic difficulties, than would a student from Jordan with limited exposure
to the English language. Little research has been done in terms of country of origin. Countries
such as China (Hsieh,2007; Wei et al, 2007) and Taiwan (Shih, & Brown, 2000; Dao,
Donghyuck & Chang, 2007) represent the little research done to distinguish among different
nationalities. Therefore, more research needs to be done to analyze the cultural experiences of
international students from India, countries of the Middle East and Latin America.
Female international students face unique challenges in their cultural adjustment to the
American academic and cultural setting because of their gender and their nationality. Research
related to problems encountered by female students in the U.S. has found that females from
developing countries face more problems than males when adapting to the U.S. (Lee, Abd-Ella,

8

& Burks, 1981). The experience of a female international student from a developing country
would differ from an international student from a developed country since inequalities still
persist in developing countries in term of gender differences. Female students from Mexico may
have a unique experience in their native country, as often the role of a female in a maledominated culture differs from one in a more equal society.
Context
International students from Mexico represent an important source of international
students in the United States. Mexico is the seventh leading feeder country of origin of
international students in the United States with a solid increasing numbers since the mid-1990s
(Institute of International Education, 2009). In addition, Mexican international students are the
largest group of international students from Latin America in the U.S. According to the Open
Doors report, there were 14,850 international students from Mexico in the U.S. in 2009 (Institute
of International Education, 2009). However, there is little research that addresses the experience
of Mexican students in the United States.
Several factors promote the mobility of Mexican students to the United States. First,
Mexico’s geographic location allows students to attend American institutions because of the
close proximity and the desire to pursue a high level of quality in American education. Large
numbers of students who live in the border area cross the international boundary daily to attend
classes, and some institutions, particularly in Texas, offer in-state tuition and fees to students
commuting from nearby Mexico (Institute of International Education, 2009). Second, the
NAFTA agreement created opportunities for exchange between Mexico and the United States
(Institute of International Education, 2009). Third, the Mexican government, through a series of
national competitions, regularly funds students to pursue graduate degrees in the United States

9

through the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). Lastly, a number of
Mexican students aspire to earn a degree in an American institution and this often leads to them
staying in the U.S. (Aupetit & Gerard, 2009). Given this context, we can observe that Mexican
students are an integral part of the student communities in many areas of the U.S.; therefore, it is
critical to expand the research on the experience of international graduate students from Mexico
in the US.
Mexican National Council of Science and Technology
The Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) is the Mexican
organization in charge of promoting the development of Science and Technology in the country
since 1970 (CONACYT, 2012). To do so, this entity has several functions. CONACYT grants
scholarships for graduate studies (master’s and doctoral) in Mexican universities that are
recognized by CONACYT as quality programs and grants scholarships to Mexican students to
pursue graduate studies in foreign countries. In addition, CONACYT administrates the National
System of Researchers in Mexico (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, SNI) and provides
economic stimulus to the members based on their productivity. CONACYT also administrates 27
research centers in the country that funds Science and Technology. Lastly, CONACYT creates
programs to encourage industry and businesses to get involved in Science and Technology
through the National Registry of Institutions and Businesses in Science and Technology
RENIECYT (CONACYT, 2012).
For this study, participants were selected from a database of current CONACYT
recipients. This information had public access online. Therefore, participants in this study were
sponsored CONACYT students in doctoral programs in the United States. This selection helped
this research in two ways. First, participants in this study had a scholarship at the time of the

10

research and would have a more homogeneous financial situation. Second, this study aims to
examine the acculturation experience of Mexican doctoral students across the United States, not
only from one or two institutions as most of the research of international students has been done.
It is worth notice that this study does not look to evaluate or assess the policies and procedures of
CONACYT. The only role of CONACYT was a source to access potential participants for this
study.
Purpose of the study
This study aims to expand the little research on international students from Latin America
looking at international doctoral students from Mexico. This study looks at the cultural
adjustment of Mexican doctoral students in American institutions. More specifically, the study
focuses on how country of origin (and destination), gender, discipline and social class affect
Mexican doctoral student’s cultural adjustment. The different types of cultural adjustments are
related to adaptation to the U.S. academic environment with differences in learning style,
curriculum and classroom dynamics; adaptation to English as the language of instruction; and
adaptation to the social environment. The study acknowledges that while all students in doctoral
programs face a particular set of challenges and adjustments, the central hypothesis of this
investigation will be that CONACYT-sponsored Mexican doctoral students may share some of
those challenges while at the same time facing special adaptations relative to their own linguistic
and cultural background and identity. By gaining an understanding of the experience of Mexican
doctoral students, American institutions, along with administrators, staff and faculty can help this
population navigate their doctoral program more effectively.
Research questions
This study will address the following questions:

11

What factors affect the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students?
Does the degree of acculturation differ by gender, academic discipline, destination, and
social class?
Significance of the study
As I pointed out previously, international graduate students make exceptional
contributions not only academically through classrooms, research and laboratories as well as
through tuition, fees and services. Further, international graduate students contribute to the
society of the United States by fostering good will among nations. After their return to their
home country, students from educational exchange programs can become leaders with a positive
attitude towards the United States. Culturally, international students bring knowledge from their
own culture that increases domestic students’ understanding of global issues. With the current
mobility of international students, there has been a significant increase of talented foreign
students in the United States. The U.S. is still the leading country of destination for international
students; however, other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom have implemented
national policies to attract international students to their own education systems. While the
number of international students in the United States increased by 8.2% between 1995 and 1999,
Australia experienced a growth of 30.1% and the United Kingdom of 11.7% in the same period
of time (International Institute of Education, 2000). As other nations are creating policies to
attract international students and competition for talented people is increasing, there is a need for
the different key holders of American higher education: policy makers, educational
administrators, faculty and staff to analyze the unique challenges and problems of international
students at an individual level to better support and advise international students. While there are
common adjustments faced by international students, knowledge of the unique challenges and

12

adjustment of international students from Latin America is needed to foster a positive experience
for international students while studying in the U.S.
This study seeks to contribute to the understanding of the cultural adjustment of
international sponsored graduate students from Mexico to provide potential Mexican
international students who are considering pursuing their graduate degree in the United States
with an understanding of the adjustments they may face in the American culture and academia.
Also, this study looks to provide faculty, staff, policy makers and administrators a base of
knowledge to help these international students succeed in their academic programs. Moreover,
American institutions can adapt this knowledge to include the needs of international students
from Latin America into the curriculum and the design of graduate programs.
Research design and overview of the methodology
This study utilizes an online survey to explain the factors that affect the acculturation of
Mexican doctoral students in the United States. Further, this study looks at the degree of
acculturation based on gender, academic discipline, destination, and social class. 235 surveys
were completed by participants. A response rate of 52%. The data was analyzed to understand
the difficult challenges of this population.
Dissertation structure
Chapter One described the focus of this study about the experience of Mexican doctoral
students in the United States. Chapter Two follows with information regarding related literature
review in with this study is based. The relevant literature includes acculturation, the acculturation
model, international students’ adjustment experience, factors associated to international students’
academic performance and predictors of doctoral success. Chapter Three describes the
methodology and research design used in this study. Chapter Four is dedicated to analyze the

13

results of this study by looking at descriptive information and by making multivariate analyses.
Lastly, chapter Five summarizes the results and gives recommendations for future research
regarding international doctoral students from Mexico in the United States.

14

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The main areas explored in the existing literature to help explain the factors that affect the
cultural adjustment of doctoral students from Mexico in the United States are the following: The
concept of acculturation, the acculturation model, international students’ adjustment experience,
factors associated to international students’ academic performance and predictors of doctoral
success.
The concept of acculturation
Acculturation is a phenomenon studied by a wide range of professionals such as
anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists and educators because it involves a process of
change at the individual level as a result of the interaction of people (Berry, 2005). One of the
early definitions of acculturation provided a foundation for further discussions. “Acculturation
comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures
come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns
of either or both groups” (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, pp. 149-150). This concept
looks at the nature of acculturation by distinguishing between culture change and assimilation.
From there, other authors have emerged introducing changes and adding variables to the concept.
For example, the concept of acculturative stress was introduced by the Social Science Research
Council in 1954 (Social Science Research Council, 1954). Further, Graves (1967) introduced the
concept of psychological acculturation to explain cross-cultural psychology.
Acculturation in the context of international students
Several authors have distinguished the acculturation of international students (Berry,
1997; Kagan & Cohen, 1990; Mendoza & Martinez, 1981; Mori, 2000; Nilsson & Doods, 2006;

15

Sodowsky & Plake, 1992). One of the wide accepted definitions of acculturation describing
international students is the one by Berry. Acculturation is defined as “the dual process of
cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more
cultural groups and their individual members” (Berry, 2005, p. 2). In this context, Berry (2005)
looks at acculturation at the individual level. Further, Oppedal (2006) argues that acculturation is
the “process towards gaining competence within two distinct cultural domains in order to have a
sense of belonging and be able to participate successfully in both” (p. 97). Based on the author’s
definition of acculturation, some models have been developed to explain the experience of
international students and they are explained below.
The acculturation model
The acculturation model has been used to study the adaptation of individuals coming to
the United States (Magana et al, 1996; Padilla & Perez, 2003). The study of acculturation since
the twentieth century looks at the results of the interaction of people from different cultures and
languages. According to Park’s model, the “contact between people from different cultures
forces them to seek ways to accommodate each other to minimize conflict” (Padilla & Perez,
2003, p.36). Three main acculturation models have been used to study the adjustment of
international students: The inclusive model of acculturation, by Mendoza and Martinez (1981),
the acculturation framework, by John W. Berry (1997), and the interactive acculturation model
(1997) by Bourhis, Moise, Perreault & Senecal.
Inclusive Model of Acculturation
The inclusive model of acculturation (Mendoza & Martinez, 1981) has been adapted to
study the adjustment of international students (Kagan & Cohen, 1990). Kagan and Cohen’s
surveyed a total of 159 students. Their findings suggest a host association model of cultural

16

adjustment. However, the inclusive model of acculturation has not been used to study graduate
students from Latin American countries in U.S. higher education institutions. Mendoza and
Martinez (1981) look at the adaptation of newcomers of Mexican descent in the American
culture utilizing the inclusive model of acculturation. Mendoza and Martinez (1981) argue that
their model assesses acculturation and can be applied to both qualitative and quantitative
research.
The authors recognize three forms of adaptation: affective, cognitive and behavioral.
Further, this model “distinguishes between degree of assimilation of dominant cultural practices
and degree of extinction of native cultural customs” (Mendoza & Martinez, 1981, p.74).
Mendoza and Martinez established four profiles to show the different degrees of assimilation and
extinction. They are:
1. Cultural resistance: Active or passive resistance to the dominant culture as depicted by
lack of assimilation.
2. Cultural shift: Substitution of one set of practices with alternate cultural characteristics
as exhibited by simultaneous assimilation and extinction.
3. Cultural incorporation: Adaptation of patterns that are representative of both cultural
groups as demonstrated by assimilation without extinction.
4. Cultural transmutation: Alteration of certain elements of both cultures to create a third
and somewhat unique subcultural entity (Mendoza & Martinez, 1981, p.74).
To illustrate the model better, the authors created the following figure:

17

Figure 2.1
The inclusive acculturation model
Dimension I
(Modalities)
Cognitive
Dimension II
(Types)

Affective

Behavioral

Dominant Cultural
Assimilation
Natural Cultural
Extinction
Cultural
Resistance
Cultural
Shift
Cultural
Incorporation
Cultural
Transmutation
The last four levels of dimension two represent composite
acculturation types derived from the levels of assimilation
and extinction
Source (Mendoza & Martinez, 1980, p. 75)

Mendoza and Martinez’s model (1981) observes multicultural acculturation profiles
across the two dimensions: the dimension of modalities and the dimension of types. For example,
the authors explain that an individual may be cognitively bicultural with both languages English
and Spanish; however, the individual may display affective and behavioral cultural shift with
attitudes that reflect only sentiments and behaviors of the dominant culture.
A shortcoming on the inclusive model of acculturation is that it does not distinguish
acculturation between different groups such as immigrants, guest workers, refugees and
international students and their length of permanence. Much of this literature is written about
individuals who plan to return to their native country, though this is not always the case with
international students. Most international students intend to stay in the host country for a
specific period of time while they study to obtain their degree. Therefore, I believe it makes the
acculturation process more complex.
18

Berry’s acculturation framework
John W. Berry (1997) makes distinctions among groups who have entered into the
acculturation process. The distinctions are related to three factors: voluntariness, mobility and
permanence. The first factor shows that some groups enter the acculturation process voluntarily
(immigrant), while others are forced to experience acculturation (refugees). The second factor
relates to mobility. Some groups experience acculturation because they have moved to a new
location (immigrant) while others have had the new culture bought to them (indigenous people).
The third factor related to permanence distinguishes the groups who have migrated to settle
permanently (immigrants) and the groups where the acculturation is temporary (international
students and guest workers). Berry (1997) states that the different groups have a common
process of adaptation. However, it is important to distinguish in the process the level of difficulty
and the eventual outcome of acculturation (Berry, 1997).
Berry (1997) proposes the acculturation framework to understand how individuals from a
cultural group deal with how to acculturate. Berry states that there are two principles when
individuals encounter with each other. The first principle is cultural maintenance which refers
to the extent individuals value and wish to maintain their cultural identity. The second principle
is contact participation which refers to the extent individuals become involved in other cultural
groups or remain primarily among themselves (Berry, 1997). Barry considered the two principles
simultaneously and based on a yes or no answer to these questions generated four acculturation
strategies: assimilation, separation, marginalization and integration.
Assimilation occurs when individuals are completely absorbed into the dominant culture,
losing their previous cultural identity (Berry, 1997). Although assimilation strategies have
positively affects the individual’s acculturation process, assimilation for international students

19

has shown a negative impact on psychological adaptation (Kagan & Cohen, 1990). For
international students, separation happens when individuals hold their original culture and avoid
interaction with other groups (Berry, 1997).
International students who follow the separation strategy may have social support by
other international students from the same home country; however, isolation from the dominant
culture may negatively affect their academic performance. The lack of English proficiency and
the lack of interaction with professors can also cause anxiety and depression (Olivas & Li, 2006).
Marginalization indicates lack of interest in the individual’s own culture and the rest of
the society. This strategy happens when the individual experiences exclusion or discrimination
(Berry, 1997). International students who assume marginalization may face high levels of
acculturative and psychological stress (Wei, Heppner, Mallen, Ku, Liao & Wu, 2007).
Integration occurs when individuals have an interest of maintaining one’s original culture
and at the same time seeking to participate as an integral part of the larger society (Berry, 1997).
Berry recommends the strategy of integration as the option to reduce the risk of stress and
increase the level of adaptation. However, Berry also recognizes that the integration strategy can
exists in multicultural societies. A multicultural society, according to Berry, is one that values
cultural diversity, has low levels of prejudice and positive attitudes among different cultural
groups (Berry, 1997).
Berry presented the following acculturation framework to illustrate the main factors that
affect an individual’s adaptation.

20

Figure 2.2
Berry’s acculturation framework
Group Level

Individual Level Variables
Moderating Factors Prior Acculturation

Society of Origin
• Political context

• Age, Gender, Education, Pre-acculturation
• Status, Migration, Motivation, Expectations

Group
Acculturation
• Physical

Acculturation
Experience

Appraisal
of
Experien.

Strategies
used

Immediate
Effects

Longterm
Outcome

• Biological
Moderating Factors During Acculturation
Society of
Settlement

• Phase (Length of time)

• Attitudes

• Acculturation strategies: attitudes and behaviors

MC ideology
Ethnic attitudes

(Acculturation Framework, 1997)

The main point of Berry’s model is to show the variables that need to be considered when
studying acculturation (Berry, 1997). On the left are the variables of the group level acculturation
phenomena which are situational variables. On the right are the variables of individual
acculturation phenomena which are personal variables. At the top of the figure are features that
exist prior to acculturation. At the bottom, we find those that appear during the acculturation
process. The middle of the framework shows the main group and psychological acculturation
phenomena going from left to right. The middle left of the figure starts with the cultural groups
and their collective features, then moves to an individual level the framework shows the possible
psychological experiences and changes in the individual’s adaptation (Berry 1997).

21

Berry’s model of acculturation shows that the acculturation process takes place over time
because it combines structural and process characteristics. The process flows from group
acculturation to individual acculturation. However, the flow is greatly variable depending on the
group level and the individual’s moderating factors prior and during acculturation (Berry, 1997).
The interactive acculturation model
Bourhis, Moise, Perreault & Senecal (1997) propose “that relational outcomes are the
product of the acculturation orientations of both the host majority and immigrant groups as
influenced by state integration policies” (p. 369). The goal of this model is to “present a nondeterminist, more dynamic account of immigrant and host country acculturation in multicultural
settings” (Bourhuis et al, 1997, p. 369). This model emphasizes not only the adaptation of the
immigrants, but adds the attitudes by the host community. An interesting feature of this model is
that distinguishes the government immigration policies as strong influence to the immigrant and
host acculturation attitudes. Based on Berry’s (1997) model acculturation scale and the
immigrants and host community orientations, the relational outcomes for this model are
consensual, problematical or conflictual. The table below shows how a single framework can
show a combination of host community and immigrant acculturation.
Table 2.1
Relational outcomes of host community and immigrant acculturation orientations: the Interactive
Acculturation Model (IAM).
Host
Immigrant community low, medium vitality groups
community
Low-Medium Integration Assimilation Separation
Anomie
Individualism
High vitality
group
Integration
Consensual Problematic Conflictual Problematic Problematic
Assimilation Problematic Consensual Conflictual Problematic Problematic
Segregation
Conflictual Conflictual
Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual
Exclusion
Conflictual Conflictual
Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual
Individualism Problematic Problematic Problematic Problematic Consensual
(Bourhis et al, 1997, p.382)
22

The group vitality of an immigrant group is “that which makes the group likely to act as a
distinctive and collective entity within the host society” (Bourhuis et al, 1997, p.382). The status
variable (low, medium, high) refers to the immigrant group “social prestige, its socio-historical
status and the prestige of its language and culture locally and internationally” (p. 383). For
example, the stronger the vitality for an immigrant group is, the more likely they would adapt
orientations related to their culture than those determined by the host community.
Concordance is the relational outcome that emerges when the immigrant group and the
host community share the same form of acculturation orientations. The relational outcome of
discordance emerges when the host community and the immigrant group acculturation
orientations match very little or not at all. According to Bourhis et al (1997), the most consensual
relational outcome is when the immigrant group and the host community share the integration,
assimilation or individual acculturation orientations. Under these circumstances, this model
predicts positive relational outcomes, low acculturative stress, low intergroup tension and no
discrimination between the immigrant group and the host community. Problematic relational
outcomes emerge when the immigrant group and the host community partially agree or partially
disagree regarding their acculturation orientations. The authors predict that this situation is most
likely to happen in 10 cells of the model. Under these circumstances, this model predicts
negative intergroup stereotypes and discriminatory behaviors. Lastly, conflictual relational
outcomes emerge in 12 cells of this model. For example, when the immigrant group endorse the
strategy of separation, they are more likely to experience negative relational outcomes with the
host community. Further, host community members who endorse segregation and exclusion are
most likely to embrace conflictual relational outcomes with the immigrant group.

23

In sum, although the interactive acculturation model contributes to the body of
knowledge regarding the acculturation of immigrants by looking at the relationship between the
host community and immigrant group as they evolve in the changing multicultural settings, more
research is needed to test the basic premises of this model specially with international students in
the United States.
International students’ adjustment experience
Much research about international students in American higher education has been
conducted. In the 1950s, the Committee on Cross-Cultural Education of the Social Science
Research Council was formed to research foreign students’ adjustment because of the increase in
enrollment of international students in the United States after World War II (Morris, 1960). This
research represents the beginning of projects related to international students. Further, this topic
gained increased significance after the events of September 11th, when international students
faced increased scrutiny by both the U.S. Government and the population at large (Poyrazli &
Grahame, 2007). Nowadays, international students constitute 12% of total graduate enrollment in
the US (Institute of International Education, 2000). However, very little research has addressed
the experience of international graduate students and does not distinguish between the experience
of international master’s students and international doctoral students (Wan, Chapman, & Biggs,
1992). Therefore, more than ever, the challenges that international graduate students face while
studying in the U.S. should be better understood by US universities. The present study looks at
the cultural adjustment of international doctoral students from Mexico. This research plans to fill
the gaps distinguishing the level of education and the country of origin of international graduate
students.

24

The research done on adjustment of international students tends to treat them as being a
single, homogenous group rather than the very diverse group depicted in the aforementioned
statistics. Previous research does not adequately address how national original impacts student
adjustment. Previous research also has focused on the cultural adjustments of international
students from a handful of countries such as Taiwan (Dao, Donghyuck, & Chang, 2007), and
China (Wei, Heppner, Mallen, Ku, Liao, & Wu, 2007). Furthermore, previous research does not
differentiate between education levels such as undergraduate population and graduate students or
gender. Nevertheless, common adjustments exist for international students as a result of being a
foreign student.
Common adjustments to international students
The primary focus of research on international students in the U.S. since the 1950s has
been on their adjustment to the U.S. academic climate, English proficiency, and institutional
differences. International students face unique challenges as they have to adapt to a new culture
in the host country. Not only do they experience problems with the English proficiency and the
academic performance, they also suffer from the loss of social support from their native country.
Language barriers
Research done on international students’ English proficiency shows that language barriers
can have a negative effect on the students’ adjustment, self- confidence, and self-esteem (Olivas
& Li, 2006). Further, “English language proficiency is an important factor in predicting student’s
academic achievement” (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007, p. 30). Differentiating international students
by regions, Sodowsky & Plake (1992) found that Africans, Asians and South Americans face a
bigger linguistic challenge than Europeans because of the lower use of English in their home
country. Therefore, some claim Africans, Asians and South Americans were less acculturated

25

than Europeans. However, as stated earlier it must be recognized that there are many nations in
these continents, and one must also consider the differences in national origin among these
groups.
Academic stress
Previous work shows international students experience academic stress. Academic stress
for international students results from differences in learning style, classroom instruction,
curriculum, teaching procedures, and class discussion (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Some of the
academic stress that international students face is a result of acculturation. Hartnett, Romcke and
Yap (2004) observe that there is a relationship between the international student’s improvement
in the level of acculturation and the improvement in academic performance. Academic stress can
negatively affect students’ academic performance (Wan, Chapman & Biggs, 1992). Students
who perform lower academically than expected experience an increased association between
acculturative stress and depression (Wei, Heppner, Mallen, Ku, Liao & Wu, 2007).
American educational system methods
Another adjustment that international students face is related to the differences in
educational systems. Wan, Chapman and Biggs (1992) found that international graduate
students’ country of origin affect the level of student’s adaptation to the American educational
system. In their study, the authors state that students whose native country’s educational system
was perceived as more distant from the U.S. observed more stress in their academic experience
than those students from countries whose educational system was more similar to the U.S.
International graduate students would benefit from an orientation that gives an overview
of the American higher education as well as the policies of the graduate department, the graduate
program and academic requirements. For example, in the case of Mexico, the educational system

26

is centralized and international Mexican students with no previous experience in American
higher education may assume the US system is similar.
Differences in teaching and learning style
Many foreign educational systems rely on the lecture learning method with little
interaction with faculty. In contrast, American graduate schools promote interaction between
students and faculty. Therefore, international students who have experienced a lecture classroom
dynamic may face difficulty adjusting to a learning style that requires more opinions, problemsolving and decision making (Ladd & Ruby, 1999). In their study Ladd and Ruby (1999) found
that international students considered low English proficiency as their major learning problem.
Timidity and passivity in the classroom were also related to international students’ problems.
Factors associated to international graduate students’ academic performance
Academic performance is frequently defined as how well the student meets the standards
set out by the student’s academic program and institution (Bell, 2012). Several factors have been
associated with the academic performance of international students. They are related to English
proficiency, learning and study strategies, interaction with faculty and peers, social interaction
and previous students’ academic performance (Stoynoff, 1997).
English proficiency
The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is a measure required by American
institutions for international students whose first language is other than English. The TOEFL
evaluates the level of English in four areas: 1) listening, 2) reading, 3) speaking and 4) writing
(Gonzalez, 2004). Since the TOEFL is used as a standard criterion for admissions of graduate
international students in American institutions, much research has been conducted to examine
the predictability of TOEFL scores on the academic performance and academic success in U.S.

27

institutions (Stoynoff, 1997; Light, Xu & Mossop, 1987; Gonzalez, 2004; Wan, Chapman &
Biggs, 1992).
Although some researchers found that the TOEFL exam is positively related to academic
performance (Stoynoff, 1997), other authors find that the TOEFL is not a sufficient measure to
predict academic success. In their research, Light, Xu and Mossop (1987) successfully
distinguish between basic interpersonal communication skills and cognitive academic language
proficiency. They found that international students may take 5-7 years to acquire the necessary
communication skills for academic success in a second language (Light, Xu & Mossop, 1987).
Further, Gonzalez (2004) states that TOEFL exam does not measure English academic
proficiency in the area in a students’ field of study, which is crucial to achieve success in
graduate school. Wan, Chapman and Biggs (1992) argue that international students can have a
satisfactory score on TOEFL and still have difficulty in their academic performance. The
attention to functional language skills such as note taking, class discussion and interaction with
faculty can help in the students’ academic adjustment (Wan, Chapman & Biggs, 1992).
Interaction with faculty and peers
Positive relationships with an advisor is a predictor of international graduate students’
success in their program (Rice et al., 2009). Bain, Fedynich and Knight (2011) found in their
study that student and faculty interaction as well as access to a knowledgeable advisor are an
essential factor for graduate student success. The authors also found that there is a strong need of
student connectedness to the faculty, peers, department environment and the doctoral program in
order for the graduate student to succeed.

28

Social interaction
One of the very few studies in the experience of international graduate students relates to
the differences between undergraduate and graduate international students’ social interaction.
Among the differences in international students’ social interaction Wan, Chapman and Biggs
(1992) state that graduate international students’ environment impede a positive social network.
International graduate students usually live off campus and are focused on their area of
specialization. According to the authors, some international graduate students may feel
overwhelmed with the new educational environment and wrap themselves up in their academic
struggles, which may affect the international graduate students’ academic performance. More
efforts on the institutions’ behalf to reach out to international graduate students are suggested
(Wan, Chapman and Biggs, 1992).
Attitudes towards learning and study strategies
Academic performance appears to be associated with international students’ attitudes
towards learning strategies (Abel, 2002). Abel (2002) distinguishes between active learners and
passive learners. Active learners prove to develop their own learning strategies and adjust more
successfully than passive learners.
The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) measures student-learning and
test-taking strategies and has assessed the study learning strategies of international students
(Stoynoff, 1997). In his study, Stoynoff found a relationship between motivation, study strategies
and international students’ academic performance.
“More academically successful students better managed their study time, were better able
to prepare for and take tests, were better at identifying the main ideas in spoken and written

29

discourse, made better use of social support systems (e.g. study groups, tutors, friends, etc.)
and spent more time studying than less academically successful students” (p.60).
Stoynoff (1997) favors training in learning and study strategies because it may lead to
lower anxiety, lower frustration and improve academic performance among international
students.
Self-efficacy beliefs
Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy as the “people’s judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (p.
391). Maddux and Meier (as cited by Poyrazli et al., 2002) stated that a strong sense of self
efficacy help students to deal with difficulties without feeling overwhelmed or anxious.
“International students who have strong academic self-efficacy beliefs will tend to set academic
goals and strive for a better adaptation to reach these goals” (Poyrazli et al, 2002, p. 363).
Previous academic performances
“Prior academic achievement is a key academic predictor of the students’ further
achievements at higher level of study” (Li et al., 2009, p.391). Further, previous academic
performance plays a dominant role on predicting students’ learning outcomes (Li et al, 2009).
McKenzie and Grow (2004) studied first-year international students and found that first semester
grades for international students were predictive of second semester grades.
Predictors of doctoral success
To complement the literature review for this study, it is important to look at the role of
acculturation and factors related to degree success. Acculturation is important because if an
international doctoral student gained acculturation to their program in the United States, it is

30

more likely to lead to student success. Following, I will discuss some factors related to doctoral
student’s success.
Mentorship
Every year many students start doctoral programs in the United States and yet, about half
of them will not complete their doctoral degree (Lovittss, 2001). Lovittss suggests the lack of
doctoral student’s persistence in graduate school is due to the organizational environment of
graduate school more than student characteristics. Furthermore, the author calls for an effort to
improve faculty –student relationships , with an eye on decreasing attrition in doctoral education.
Mentoring is defined as “a nurturing process in which a more skilled or more experienced
person, serving as a role model, teaches, sponsors, encourages, counsels and befriends a less
skilled or less experienced person for the purpose of promoting the latter’s professional and/or
personal development” (Anderson and Shannon, 1988, p.40). According to Pagli, Green & Bauer
(2006), positive mentorship experience has an impact on student’s research productivity, career
commitment and self-efficacy. In their longitudinal study, the authors found in their final data
collection that after five and a half years, 50% of the participants graduated, 19% left with a
master’s degree and 30% were still enrolled in the doctoral program. In this study, the authors
measured important dimensions of mentoring in graduate school. In addition, this outcome based
study represents a significant contribution to the research in mentoring.
Mentorship is especially important at the dissertation stage. A positive relationship
between advisor and student is crucial in the dissertation writing process. Research suggests that
students who are not well advised or mentored during the dissertation stage take considerably
longer for their degree completion. (Nerad and Cerny, 1993)

31

Student’s involvement with the academic environment
“Student involvement in departmental, institutional, and professional activities
contributes favorably to retention and completion” (Herzig, 2004, p. 175). Although the degree
of involvement of students in the academic environment has been researched largely at the
undergraduate level as a predictor of persistence and student’s success (Astin, 1984; Lewin, 1935
& Tinto, 1975); a few studies have looked at student involvement theory with graduate students
(Gardner & Barnes, 2007; Pontius & Harper, 2003). Student involvement has been defined as a
multifaceted concept. “Involvement can encompass academic, social, and political dimensions,
but greater involvement generally leads to greater academic success” (Gardner and Barnes, 2007,
p. 369). In their study, Gardner and Barnes (2007) found that graduate student involvement is an
essential part of the socialization process linked to the student’s professional development.
Along the same lines, Pontius and Harper (2006) address that graduate student engagement
commits students in preparation for future roles. Moreover, Tinto (1993) argues that in doctoral
education, intellectual integration and social integration are interrelated. The author states the
following:
"Social membership within one's program becomes part and parcel of academic
membership, and social interaction with one's peers and faculty becomes closely linked
not only to one's intellectual development, but also to the development of important skills
required for doctoral completion" (Tinto, 1993, p. 232).
Financial support
A sufficient financial support for graduate students is essential to the students’ retention.
Graduate students may have different forms of support such as fellowships, research
assistantships, teaching assistantships, employment and/or personal resources. According to

32

Girves and Wemmerus (1988), although fellowships are created to recruit talented graduate
students, recipients may miss the benefits of an assistantship such as interaction with other
faculty and the opportunity to learn in the academic profession. Furthermore, at the dissertation
stage, financial support decreases (e.g., students who do not complete the dissertation in a timely
manner often find themselves ineligible for assistantships due to institutional limitations in
eligibility and availability). It may also increase the time to complete the degree (Wright, 1991).
However, without the financial resources, graduate students are likely to drop out from their
program. Jacks et al (1983) found that financial difficulties along with poor advising or
committee relationships were the number one reason(s) for dropouts at the ABD stage.
Graduate student’s relationship with members of the faculty
Herzig (2004) states that the graduate student’s interaction with faculty members is
critical for students to become integrated into the departmental communities.
“Graduate student relations with members of the faculty are regarded by most graduate
students as the most important aspect of the quality of their graduate experience;
unfortunately, many also report that it is the single most disappointing aspect of their
graduate experience” (Harnett & Katz, 1977, p.647).
The importance of the interaction between graduate students and faculty members is vital
in every stage of their program. In the dissertation stage, the dissertation committee can
determine whether or not the doctoral student graduates (Girves and Wemmerus, 1988).
Skudlarek’s (1992) findings suggest a significant relationship between support to students by the
dissertation committee members and completion of the program. Moreover, Sorenson and Kagan
(1987) concluded that student and advisor personalities must match to avoid conflict between
doctoral candidates and dissertation chairs. The authors classified personalities from 1)

33

dependence versus independence, 2) nurturance versus distance, and 3) epistemological versus
preference.
Summary of chapter
In summary, the literature review indicated that very little research has been done to
examine the acculturation experiences of international doctoral students. Since little research has
been done in this matter, this study draws somewhat from literature on international
undergraduate students. Relevant literature for this study included research on acculturation, the
different acculturation models used to look at the experience of internationals students, common
adjustment for international students and factors that affect international student’s academic
performance. Acculturation has been studied by researchers to look at the adjustment of
foreigners in a host country. Several authors have distinguished the acculturation of international
students (Berry, 1997; Kagan & Cohen, 1990; Mendoza & Martinez, 1981; Mori, 2000; Nilsson
& Doods, 2006; Sodowsky & Plake, 1992). Three examples of acculturation models were
illustrated in this chapter that have been adapted to the acculturation of international students.
The inclusive model of acculturation by Mendoza & Martinez (1981) recognizes three forms of
adaptation which are affective, cognitive and behavioral. Further, Berry’s (1997) model of
acculturation proposes the acculturation framework to understand how individuals from a
cultural group deal with how to acculturate considering four acculturation strategies:
assimilation, separation, marginalization and integration. Then, the Interactive Acculturation
Model (1997) by Bourhis et al. proposes relational outcomes as the product of different
acculturation orientations between the immigrant group and the host community. Among the
common adjustments mentioned in this chapter that international students face while studying in

34

the United States were language barriers, academic stress, American educational system methods
and differences in teaching styles.
Following, this chapter examined the factors associated with international graduate
students’ academic performance. These factors were identified as coping resources to decrease
acculturative stress. They were English proficiency, interaction with faculty and peers, social
interaction, attitudes towards learning and study strategies, self-efficacy beliefs and previous
academic performance. Lastly, this chapter explored the predictors in doctoral success such as
mentorship, student’s involvement in the academic environment, financial support and student’s
relationship with faculty members. In the following chapter, I examine the methodology as well
as the research design.

35

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes the research methods utilized in this study to explain the cultural
adjustment of international doctoral students from Mexico in American academic programs. The
main research questions for this study are: What factors affect the acculturation of Mexican
doctoral students? and Does the degree of acculturation differ by gender, academic discipline,
destination, and social class? This chapter also includes information about the participants of this
study, the process of gathering contact information and the response rate. The following
methodology is used to address the present study.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is based on Berry’s (1997) model of
acculturation. According to Berry (1997) the process of acculturation flows from group
acculturation with situational variables to individual acculturation with personal variables. Group
variables are related to the society of origin and the society of settlement. Among the personal
variables Berry included are factors of prior acculturation such as age, gender, education, status,
migration, motivation, expectations, cultural distance (language, religion, etc.) and personality
(locus of control, flexibility). The factors developed during acculturation included length of time,
acculturation strategies, social support and societal attitudes. Berry found that individuals
generate four acculturation strategies: assimilation, separation, marginalization and integration.
Integration seems to be the ideal acculturation strategy for international doctoral students where
they can maximize their adaptation and academic performance.
Dependent variables
This study has one dependent variable: acculturation.

36

Acculturation relates to the individual process, which depends on different personal,
psychological and background factors (Nilsson & Dodds, 2006).
Independent variables
The independent variables are adopted from Berry’s model of acculturation,
demographics and factors associated with international students’ academic performance. The
independent variables from demographics include gender, age, marital status (Chapdaleine &
Alexitch, 2004; Kagan & Cohen, 1990), geographical region of American institution, academic
discipline (Trice, 2003), years living in the United States or other English speaking country
(Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004), expected degree completion in years, first-year in current
graduate program (Poyrazli et al, 2002). Other independent variables in this study consist of
previous experience of living abroad, previous study or exposure to English, geographical origin
in Mexico and parents’ level of education, social support and perceived discrimination. The
independent variables from international students’ academic performance include self-reported
Grade Point Average (GPA) (Light, Xu & Mossop, 1987), self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986;
Poyrazli et al, 2002) and perceived English proficiency.
Building the construct of acculturation
For this study a model was constructed based on Berry’s model of acculturation (1997).
The data was organized to include variables regarding the student’s academic experience,
cultural experience and personal experience. To measure acculturation, this model included
seven outcomes. The following table illustrates the variable outcomes, their meaning and their
measurement.

37

Table 3.1
Outcomes
Variable
-Academic experience
1. Academic satisfaction

2. Attitudes

-Cultural experience
3. Integration

4. Strategies

-Personal experience
5. Student’s relationship
with academic advisor
6. Student’s relationship
with professors
7. Student’s relationship
with American students

Meaning

Measurement

It refers to the student’s
satisfaction in their
academic experience
It refers to the student’s
self-confidence to overcome
obstacles and finish their
doctoral program

Six-point response scale
ranged from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)
Six-point response scale
ranged from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)

It refers to the extent to
which the student value the
contact with the American
culture
It refers to the ability for
participants to distinguish
between Mexican values
and American values.

Six-point response scale
ranged from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)

Description of the student’s
relationship with academic
advisor
Description of student’s
relationship with professors

Four-point response scale
ranged from 1 (bad) to 4
(excellent)
Four-point response scale
ranged from 1 (bad) to 4
(excellent)
Six-point response scale
ranged from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)

It refers to student’s
interaction with American
students during his/her free
time

Six-point response scale
ranged from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)

In addition, this model included eleven predictors. Most of the predictors were
demographic characteristics of the participants such as gender, age, perceived English
proficiency and parental educational background. Other predictors were related to perceived
discrimination, social support, self-reported doctoral GPA and type of institution. Following,
Table 3.2 includes the predictor variables, their meaning and their measurement.

38

Table 3.2
Predictors
Variable
1.Gender
2.Age
3.Length of time

4.Self-reported doctoral
GPA
5. Academic discipline
6. Mother’s level of
education
7. Father’s level of
education
8. Type of institution

9. English proficiency

10. Discrimination

11. Social support

Meaning
It refers to the student’s
gender
It refers to the student’s age
It refers to the student
doctoral program’s
academic year
It refers to the self- reported
student’s doctoral GPA
It refers to the student’s
academic discipline
It refers to the student
mother’s level of education

Measurement
Male, female and
transgender
Numeric
Numeric fist year to seventh
year
Numeric from 3.00 to 4.00

Biglan’s classification of
academic discipline
Seven-point response scale
ranged from 1 (Elementary)
to 7 (Ph.D.)
It refers to the student
Seven-point response scale
father’s level of education
ranged from 1 (Elementary)
to 7 (Ph.D.)
It refers to the American
Private and public
institution where the student institution
pursues the doctoral
program
It refers to the student’s
Six-point response scale
perceived level of English
ranged from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)
It refers to the student’s
Six-point response scale
perceived level of
ranged from 1 (totally
discrimination based on
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)
their race or nationality
It refers to the
Six-point response scale
communication that
ranged from 1 (totally
students have with their
disagree) to 6 (totally agree)
family and friends back
home

Research design
A quantitative methodology was suitable for this study for several reasons. This is the
first time a national study has looked at the experience of international students in the United
States and that utilizes a survey-based methodology. In addition, with this population,
participants were very sensitive to their perception that this may have been an evaluation of some
39

kind, rather than a research project. Therefore, the survey is an effective anonymous method
when members of a population feel their replies may lead to detrimental consequences. In this
way, the survey seems to be a comfortable way for participants to respond, even though some
advantages may have been gained by engaging in a qualitative research method. Most
quantitative studies on international students’ adjustment are surveys (Lee, Abd-Ella & Burks,
1981; Shin & Abell, 1999; Shih & Brown, 2000). Moreover, many of the quantitative studies
were the result of English language surveys mailed to international students when they were in
the U.S. (Kagan & Cohen, 1990; Perruccy & Hu, 1995). This study used a quantitative
methodology to collect data utilizing a web-based survey. The web-based survey was developed
using existing questionnaires as well as an analysis of the current literature to measure
individual’s acculturation.
Pre-test
The questionnaire was pre-tested before applying it to the larger sample. The
questionnaire was sent to several Latin American doctoral students to answer and also was sent
to members of the Latin community student organization at a Midwest university. The comments
of the reviewers helped to improve the questionnaire before it was sent to the sample. The
questionnaire for the interviews included questions to describe challenges and coping strategies
as well as to explain their experience in US doctoral programs. The pre-test helped not only in
the design of the survey, but also helped to find the best procedures to improve the response rate
and to learn if it is more advantageous to the study to conduct the survey in Spanish or English.
The Sample
The target population for this study was Mexican doctoral students sponsored by the
National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) in US institutions. The target

40

population included 450 doctoral CONACYT-sponsored Mexican students who were currently
pursuing Ph.D.s in American institutions in the fall semester of 2012 (CONACYT, 2010). From
those 450 participants, 235 Mexican doctoral students in the U.S. completed the online survey.
The response rate was 52%. CONACYT is the main sponsoring governmental organization of
Mexican graduates in the U.S. Mexican sponsored students from CONACYT represent a part of
a particular population of international sponsored students that is worth considering.
Throughout the world, countries have invested in the development of knowledge through
scholarships to fund educational exchange programs. Mexico supports graduate students
financially to pursue graduate education abroad through CONACYT. Although financial support
for the students is essential, this single support does not guarantee the student’s success,
persistence or graduation. Therefore, this research explored the experience of this understudied
population by looking at doctoral students in American institutions sponsored by the Mexican
National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT).
Mexican students abroad sponsored by CONACYT
Data provided by the National Council of Science and Technology, CONACYT, shows
that there were 2,348 Mexican graduate students abroad sponsored by this organization in
September of 2010 in 30 different countries (CONACYT, 2010). CONACYT-sponsored
graduate students abroad in 2010 include 1,954 Mexicans pursuing doctoral degrees, 420
Mexicans pursuing master’s degrees and 64 Mexicans pursuing advanced specializations. The
gender composition of these Mexican graduate students abroad shows that 1,427 students were
males and 1,011 students were females.
Among the top destination countries for CONACYT-sponsored students for 2010 are:
The United States with 649 students, where 409 were males and 240 were females; The United

41

Kingdom hosts 553 Mexican students, where 314 were males and 239 were females; and Spain
hosts 429 Mexican CONACYT students, comprising of 218 males and 211 females
(CONACYT, 2010).
Of the 649 CONACYT-sponsored Mexican students in American institutions, 496 were
doctoral students. 313 of these students were males, while 183 were females. Regarding the
geographical area, CONACYT-sponsored Mexican students were hosted by American
institutions across the country; however, Arizona, Texas and California are the top U.S. states
hosting Mexican doctoral students in 2010 (CONACYT, 2010).
Previous research done on international students looks at the experience of participants
from a single American institution (Constantine et al, 2005; Hernandez-Castaneda, 2008;
Perrucci & Hu, 1995). However, this study will include graduate Mexican CONACYTsponsored doctoral students from different disciplines and from different institutions in the U.S.
to ensure representation of participants in various categories such as discipline (i.e. social
science, natural science, physical science), geographical area, (i.e. southwest, southeast, east,
northeast, west, Midwest, northwest) and type of institution (i.e. public and private).
Instrument
The instrument used to collect data was a web-based survey. The online survey was
developed based on existing questionnaires to measure individual’s cultural adjustment (Brislin,
Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973) and also on the analysis of the literature. The questionnaire looked
at the individual’s acculturation in different stages and environment. Among other environments,
the study looked at the individual’s acculturation as a member of a community, as a member of
the university, and as a member of the college’s department. The online survey was conducted in
Spanish, the native language of the participants, to increase the response rate and to break the

42

language barrier. The time to answer the online survey was between 15 and 20 minutes.
Participants were shown inform consent form in the first page of the online survey indicating that
their participation in this research study was confidential and voluntary. The online survey
consisted of thirty-six multiple questions divided in four sections and five open ended questions.
The online survey included a space for comments in the multiple questions. This space was
intended to write additional information that was not reflected in the questions and it was
optional. Overall, the comment section was well used. Almost all the comments were written in
Spanish as well. In addition, the survey included eighteen questions related to demographic
information such as gender, age, marital status, academic discipline, previous study, years living
in the United States or other English speaking country, first year in current graduate program,
previous experience of living abroad, and geographical origin in Mexico. Issues such as social
class were identified by proxies such as parent education and other data.
Data Collection
CONACYT sponsored doctoral students who were studying in the United States were
contacted by email to inform them about this study and to ask for their participation in this
project. Through the email, participants were told that the purpose of this research was to learn
about the students’ cultural adjustment to the U.S. Then, the web-based questionnaire was sent as
a link to students by e-mail. I utilized the software of Survey Monkey to create the questionnaire.
To maximize the questionnaire response rate, students had the opportunity to enter a drawing for
a gift certificate. There were three reminders sent to participants throughout the semester of
August to December of 2012 to answer the online survey. Reminders were sent only to those
participants who did not answer the online survey before.

43

Process of gathering contact information from Mexican CONACYT-sponsored doctoral
students in the United States
One of the challenges I faced during this study was to get the participants’ e-mails.
CONACYT publishes a list of all Mexican CONACYT-sponsored students which include
students pursuing master’s degrees, doctoral degrees and advanced specializations. The
information from each student included complete name, start date and end of scholarship, degree
of study, country of study, institution of study, and discipline; however, the student’s e-mail is
not provided.
I started working with these data by converting the pdf file of 165 pages into an excel
sheet. After, I sorted the list by country of study. I added a column to include gender going one
by one based on the participants’ name. Then, I selected CONACYT-sponsored doctoral students
in the United States. I created a new excel sheet with only this population. I sorted the list by
degree and separated Mexican CONACYT-sponsored doctoral students from the master’s
students and students pursuing advanced specializations. My list was reduced to 496 participants.
I needed the students’ email to be able to contact them and send them the online survey. I
contacted the staff from CONACYT and asked for their help. They denied my request, claiming
student confidentiality issues. My next strategy was to search for each of the 496 students’
emails. I sorted the list by institution of study. Then, I went to each institution’s website and
looked for the student’s email through people finder. Sometimes it was more useful to look based
on the student’s field of study, as I could sometimes find the e-mail addresses on the
department’s website, which sometimes displays a list of graduate students. Some institutions
have this information available for the public, but other institutions have the student’s
information only available to those who belong to the university. I also looked at other websites

44

and social media such as Google and Facebook. In the end, I was able to locate the emails of 450
of the 496 Mexican CONACYT-sponsored doctoral students in the United States.
Survey response rates
As the information technology increases, the use of different ways of collecting data has
expanded. According to Nulty (2008), “Online surveys are much less likely to achieve response
rates as high as surveys administrated on paper” (p. 302). Nevertheless, how much less are we
talking about? And does the author consider differences in type of populations for the response
rates? Considering research done on online surveys’ response rates for participants that belong to
the university community, Fricker and Schonlau (2002) examined response rates for online
surveys. They found five examples of online surveys with response rates ranging from 8% to
44%. In their study, the authors concluded that the online surveys that have had higher response
rate than conventional surveys targeted university based population. Further, Nulty (2008)
looked at response rates of online surveys done in five universities and they ranged from 20% to
47%. Therefore, considering the previous literature, where the response rates ranged from 8% to
47% and the similarity in the population, the response rate for this research study of 52% seems
like an acceptable response rate. Lastly, to boost online surveys response rates, research suggests
sending repeat reminders to non-respondents (students) and to offer incentives to student
participants in the form of prizes through a drawing (Nulty, 2008; Porter & Whitcomb, 2003).
Data Analysis
The first part of the data analysis was the sample demographics. I compared data in terms
of gender, age, marital status, parental status, length of stay, academic doctoral GPA, academic
discipline and parental educational level. In addition, regarding the type of institution, I
compared the data by looking at public and private institutional control, the Carnegie

45

classification and geographic distribution. When data was available, I compared the sample to
the population. The results allowed me to confirm that there was no bias on key demographic
variables.
To answer the research questions for this study, means and standard deviations of the
outcomes were analyzed through the SPSS software. Further, a Pearson product-moment
correlation analysis was conducted to look at the relationship among the different outcomes.
After examining the outcomes, I followed by doing the analysis of the predictors and their
relationship with the outcomes. T-tests analyses were computed to compare the predictor
variables that were dichotomous such as gender (male and female), type of institution (public
and private) and perceived English proficiency (fluent and very fluent). After that, an analysis of
variance was conducted for the predictors that were categorical variables: father’s level of
education, discrimination and social support. Lastly, I used multiple regression techniques to
examine the relative importance of the predictors for each of the outcomes in this study. The
results of the analysis demonstrated the most relevant predictors of all eleven variables included
in this model to predict the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States.

46

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The primary purpose of this study is to look at the experiences of Mexican doctoral
students in American institutions and examine the degree of acculturation of Mexican doctoral
students enrolled in U.S. universities by gender, academic discipline, destination, and social
class. This chapter describes the sample demographics and where possible compares the sample
to the population. To answer the research questions this chapter first looks at descriptive
information and makes bivariate comparisons between study outcomes and predictors. The
chapter then examines more complex multivariate analyses.
Description of the sample
An online survey was sent to 450 recipients of grants from CONACYT to complete their
doctoral studies in the U.S. who were enrolled during the Fall semester of 2012. Up to three
reminders were sent to the recipients, and 235 Mexican doctoral students in the U.S. responded,
a response rate of 52%. When the population information was available, the sample and
population were compared to check for bias.
Of the 235 Mexican doctoral students, about 61% (n = 144) were male and about 38%
were female (n = 91). Table 4 shows the frequency of participants by gender.
Table 4.1
Frequency table of gender
Frequency

Percent

Valid Female
Male
Total

38.7
61.3
100.0

91
144
235

Valid
Percent
38.7
61.3
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
38.7
100.0

The distribution of Mexican doctoral students by gender who responded to the online
survey was representative of the total population. Comparing gender to the total population of
47

450 potential respondents, 286 were male (63.55%) and 164 were female (36.44 %). A Chisquare analysis was done to compare the sample to the population in terms of gender to check for
bias. Results of the Chi-square test showed a p value= .468 > .05. The difference between the
observed value and the expected value was not statistically significant; therefore there was no
evidence of a bias sample in terms of gender. The following table shows the chi-square results:
Table 4.2
Chi-square analysis for gender
Gender
Observed N
Female
91
Male
144
Total
235

Expected N
85.6
149.4

Residual
5.4
-5.4

The average age of participants was 31.27 years, ranging from 23 to 50 years old. The
age standard deviation was 4.832. The following table shows the frequency of Mexican doctoral
students by age.
Table 4.3
Frequency table of age
Frequency

Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Age Groupings
20-25
10
26-30
103
31-35
82
36-40
14
41-45
9
46-50
5

4.48
46.18
36.77
6.27
4.03
2.27

4.48
50.66
87.43
93.7
97.73
100.0

Total

100

223

Since the participants for this study are exclusively doctoral students, I would have
expected to have an older sample. This is due to an assumption that students likely already had a
master’s degree and some professional experience. A similar study regarding international
doctoral students had a sample of 254 participants and an average age of 36.8 (Strang, 2009). In

48

contrast, in this study, 87% of the participants were 35 years old or younger. Clearly, we can see
that the sample for this investigation has younger participants.
About 43% were single and about 40% were married. Given the age of the participants,
and the Mexican demographical phenomenon of marrying at a relatively early age, I expected
more respondents who were married. Below, the table shows the summary.
Table 4.4
Frequency table of marital status
Frequency

Percent

Valid Single
101
Married
96
Divorced
6
With a partner 20
Total
223

43.0
40.9
2.6
8.5
94.9

Valid
Percent
45.3
43.0
2.7
9.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
45.3
88.3
91.0
100.0

About only 25% of the participants indicated that they were parents with children and
about 75% indicated that they did not have children.
Table 4.5
Frequency table of participants’ parental status
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Valid Yes
58
24.7
26.0
No
165
70.2
74.0
Total
223
94.9
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
26.0
100.0

The average participant’s length of stay in the United States was about 3 years, ranging
from one year to seven years. The standard deviation was 1.478. Following, the table 4.6
includes the summary of the participant’s length of stay in the United States.

49

Table 4.6
Frequency table of years in the United States
Frequency
Percent
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
Total

27
56
48
49
28
12
4
224

Valid
Percent
12.1
25.0
21.4
21.9
12.5
5.4
1.8
100.0

11.5
23.8
20.4
20.9
11.9
5.1
1.7
95.3

Cumulative
Percent
12.1
37.1
58.5
80.4
92.9
98.2
100.0

About one-half of the participants were in their third or fourth academic year of graduate
study (51.3%). The following table shows the frequency of the participant academic year in their
doctoral program.
Table 4.7
Participants’ academic year
Academic Year
First year
Second year
Third year
Forth year
Fifth year
Sixth year
Seventh year
Total

Response Percent
0.4%
22.3%
25.9%
25.4%
17.0%
8.6%
0.4%
100%

Response Count
1
50
58
57
38
19
1
224

I anticipated a potential bias toward doctoral students who are in the middle of their
program. I suspected that these students would be more likely to participate in an online survey.
First- year doctoral students may be too stressed about their program and students at the end of
their doctoral program may be too busy trying to finish. Therefore, the result is more or less what
I expected with most of participants in their third and fourth academic year.
This study was designed to look at the cultural adaptation of Mexican doctoral students
across the United States. Participants who completed the online survey were pursuing a doctoral
50

degree from 89 different institutions across the country. Following, the tables show the
breakdown of institutions by Carnegie type, by public/private, and by geographic distribution.
The table with breakdown for specific institutions and number of participants from each
institution is located in the appendix.
Table 4.8
Participants’ institution by Carnegie classification
Frequency
Percent Valid
RU/VH (Very high
research activity)
RU/ H (High research
activity)
DRU (Doctoral/research
universities)
Total

Percent

Cumulative
Percent
83.8

197

83.8

83.8

29

12.3

12.3

96.2

9

3.8

3.8

100.0

235

100.0

100.0

Based on the Carnegie Classification, slightly more than three-quarters of participants
studied in American institutions with very high research activity. The basic Carnegie
classification for doctorate-granting universities is: RU/VH (very high research activity), RU/H
(high research activity) and DRU (Doctoral/research universities). This basic classification
includes “institutions that awarded at least 20 research doctoral degrees during the update year
(excluding JD, MD, PharmD and DPT)” (Carnegie, 2013). According to the Carnegie
classification (2013), there are currently 108 American institutions classified as RU/VH, 99
American institutions classified as RU/H, and 90 American institutions classified as DRU.
It is worth noting that CONACYT only grants scholarships to Mexican students pursuing
doctoral degrees in high quality programs in American institutions, which need to have an
agreement of collaboration with CONACYT (CONACYT, 2012). Therefore, I expected to have
a high percentage of American institutions with very high research activity.

51

A chi-square analysis compared the sample to the population in terms of institution’s
Carnegie classification to check for bias. With a p value = .855 > .05, there was no significant
difference between the observed value and the expected value; therefore, there was no evidence
of bias in the sample in terms of Carnegie classification. Following the table shows the chisquare analysis.
Table 4.9
Chi-square analysis for Carnegie classification
Carnegie
Observed N
Classification
Very high research
197
High research
29
Doctoral/ research
9
Total
235

Expected N

Residual

193.7
31.3
9.9

3.3
-2.3
-.9

Regarding the classification of public and private institution, more than one-half of
participants studied in public institutions in the United States (71.5%).
Table 4.10
Participants' institution by public and private
Frequency
Percent Valid
Public
Private
Total

168
67
235

71.5
28.5
100.0

Percent
71.5
28.5
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
71.5
100

A chi-square analysis compared the sample to the population on public/private institution.
Results of the chi-square analysis showed a p value=.229>.05; therefore there is no significant
difference between the observed value and the expected value and there is no bias in terms of
public/private institution. Below the table shows the summary of the chi-square results:
Table 4.11
Chi-square analysis for public/private institution
Institution
Observed N
Public
168
Private
67
Total
235
52

Expected N
176
59

Residual
-8.0
8.0

Regarding the geographical distribution, more than one-half of the participants studied in
American institutions in the West and South region (60.9%). California and Arizona were states
included in the West region and Texas was a state included in the South region. This distribution
reflects the states where most of Mexican students study in the United States because of the
geographic location and the opportunities to study at border U.S. institutions (Institute of
International Education, 2012).
Table 4.12
Participants’ institution by geographic distribution
Frequency
Percent Valid
West region
South region
Northeast region
Midwest region
Total

89
54
52
40
235

37.9
23.0
22.1
17.0
100.0

Percent
37.9
23.0
22.1
17.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
37.9
60.9
83.0
100

A chi-square analysis compared the sample to the population on geographic distribution.
A p value=.585 >.05 showed no significant difference between the observed value and expected
value; therefore there is no bias in terms of institution by geographic distribution. Below, the
table for chi-square is shown.
Table 4.13
Chi-square analysis for institution by geographic distribution
Geographic
Observed N
Expected N
distribution
West region
89
79.9
South region
54
61.1
Northeast region
52
52.2
Midwest region
40
41.8
Total
235

Residual
9.1
-7.1
-.2
-1.8

For this study, the academic disciplines were categorized based on the Biglan’s
classification. Biglan (1973) classified academic disciplines in eight categories, which I
53

condensed to four because of the study sample size. The categories are: Hard-pure, Soft-pure,
Hard-applied, and Soft-applied. Hard-pure classification includes academic disciplines such as
Biology, Biochemistry, Mathematics, Geology, and Astronomy. Soft-pure classification includes
Sociology, Anthropology, Political Sciences, Literature, and Economics. Academic disciplines in
the Hard-applied category include Agriculture, Medicine, and Engineering. Finally, the Softapplied academic disciplines include Education, Finance, Accounting, Counseling, Marketing
among others.
218 participants answered the question about academic discipline on the online survey.
74 participants were in Hard-pure academic disciplines. 53 Mexican doctoral students were in
Soft-pure academic disciplines. 63 Mexican doctoral students were pursuing doctoral programs
in Hard-applied academic disciplines, and 28 Mexican doctoral students where in Soft-applied
academic disciplines. Following, the table shows the distribution by academic discipline.
Table 4.14
Frequency table of participant’s academic discipline
Frequency
Percent
Valid Hard-pure
Soft-pure
Hard-applied
Soft-applied
Total

74
53
63
28
218

31.5
22.6
26.8
11.9
92.8

Valid
Percent
33.9
24.3
28.9
12.8
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
33.9
58.3
87.2
100.0

Regarding participants experience studying abroad, almost 60% of the respondents did
not have any previous experience studying abroad. About 40% had previous experience studying
outside of Mexico. This is an interesting finding because I expected more participants to have
some experience studying abroad.
Below, the table illustrates the frequency.

54

Table 4.15
Participants’ experience studying abroad
Frequency

Percent

Valid Previous experience
No previous experience
Total

39.1
55.7
94.9

92
131
223

Valid
Percent
41.3
58.7
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
41.3
100.0

If more than one-half of the participants did not have previous experience studying
abroad, it would be worth doing further research of the reasons why participants decided to study
their doctoral program abroad and how they selected the United States and their institution.
The average of the participants’ doctoral program GPA was 3.715 ranging from 3.00 to
4.00 with a standard deviation of 0.2309. About half of the participants had a GPA above 3.76
(54.52%). The following table shows the GPA distribution.
Table 4.16
Frequency table of participants’ doctoral program GPA
GPA
Frequency
Percent
3.00 - 3.25
3.26 - 3.50
3.51 - 3.75
3.76 - 4.00
Total

9
39
48
115
211

4.26
18.48
22.74
54.52
100.00

Cumulative
Percent
4.26
22.74
45.78
100.00

It is worth noting that CONACYT requires that students maintain a minimum graduate
program GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for continued funding of graduate study. Therefore, I would
expect participants’ GPA to be higher than 3.0.
220 participants answered the question about mother’s level of education. The options
ranged from elementary school to Ph.D. degree. About 55% had a mother with at least a college
education.
The table below shows the frequency.
55

Table 4.17
Frequency table for participants’ mother educational level
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Valid Elementary school
19
8.1
8.6
Middle school
15
6.4
6.8
Technical school
33
14.0
15.0
High school
22
9.4
10.0
College
75
31.9
34.1
Master’s
34
14.5
15.5
Ph.D.
22
9.4
10.0
Total
220
93.6
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
8.6
15.5
30.5
40.5
74.5
90.0
100.0

On average the father’s educational attainment was higher: About 70% of respondents
indicated their father attained at least a college-level of education. This result does not reflect
that the actual average educational attainment is relatively low in Mexico when compared to
other countries. The average Mexican student goes no further than 8.6 years of school (INEGI,
2012), though educational attainment varies widely among social classes.
The following table explains this data.

Table 4.18
Frequency table of participants’ fathers educational level
Frequency
Percent
Valid Elementary school
Middle school
Technical school
High school
College
Master’s
Ph.D.
Total

13
11
10
16
93
42
31
216

5.5
4.7
4.3
6.8
39.6
17.9
13.2
91.9

Valid
Percent
6.0
5.1
4.6
7.4
43.1
19.4
14.4
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
6.0
11.1
15.7
23.1
66.2
85.6
100.0

The results above show that parents’ education is highly correlated with attending a
doctoral program. This finding is consistent with other research regarding this matter. Mullen,
Goyette and Soares (2003) state that “Family educational background affects enrollment in
56

postgraduate programs even after the receipt of the baccalaureate degree” ( p. 159). In their
article entitled “Who goes to graduate school? Social and academic correlates of educational
continuation after college, the authors found that parents’ education had a strong impact in the
students’ enrollment in a doctoral program.
224 participants responded to the question about parents’ experience studying abroad.
About two-thirds of the participants’ parents did not have any experience studying abroad. From
those participants whose parents had experience abroad, a higher percentage indicated the
participant’s father studying abroad than the participant’s mother. Following, the table shows the
frequency.
Table 4.19
Frequency table of participants’ parents experience studying abroad
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Valid No
185
78.7
82.6
Yes, both parents
13
5.5
5.8
Yes, only my father 20
8.5
8.9
Yes, only my mother 6
2.6
2.7
Total
224
95.3
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
82.6
88.4
97.3
100.0

Research questions
The data analysis for this study was examined to address the following research
questions:
What factors affect the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students? and Does the degree
of acculturation differ by gender, academic discipline, destination, and social class?
The construct of acculturation
To answer the first research question of what factors affect the acculturation of Mexican
doctoral students?, I built the construct of acculturation based on Berry’s model of acculturation
57

(1997), which includes academic experience, cultural experience and personal experience. I
organized the data to include items in the three parts of the construct of acculturation. This model
includes seven outcomes and eleven predictors.
The following table shows the classification along with the demographics that were
utilized in the model.
Table 4.20
Operationalizing the Variables
Variable
Outcomes
- Academic experience
Academic satisfaction
Attitudes
- Cultural Experience
Integration
Strategies
- Personal Experience
Related to professors
Relationship with academic advisor
Relationship with other professors
Related to students
Relationship with American students
Predictors
Gender
Age
Length of time
Self-reported GPA
Academic discipline
Mother’s level of education
Father’s level of education
Institution
English proficiency
Discrimination
Social support

Questionnaire Item

Question 1
Question 5
Question 12
Question 15

Question 32
Question 33
Question 27
Question 42
Question 43
Question 45
Question 50
Question 46
Question 57
Question 58
Information added
Question 10
Question 20
Question 25

After an initial selection of items, I looked at the relationship among the different
outcomes to reduce the likelihood of collinearity (highly correlated).

58

Means and standard deviations of the outcomes
The means and standard deviation of the seven outcomes are shown in the following
table.
Table 4.21
Means and standard deviation for the outcomes
N
Minimum
1.Academic satisfaction
2.Attitudes
3.Integration
4.Strategies
5.Student’s relationship with
academic advisor
6.Student’s relationship with
other professors
7.Student’s relationship with
American students
Valid N (list wise)

Maximum

Mean

235
234
234
233
232

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00

6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00

5.2340
5.3248
5.0214
5.6009
3.4698

Std.
Deviation
.92016
.8547
1.05816
.62243
.65064

232

2.00

4.00

3.1983

.60617

232

1.00

6.00

3.0862

1.51225

230

The outcomes of academic satisfaction, attitudes, integration, strategies, and student’s
relationship with American students had a six-point response scale range from 1 ( totally
disagree ) to 6 (totally agree). Participants generally agreed to identify differences between the
values of their country and the values of the American culture (strategies: M = 5.6009, SD =
.62243). Participants also agreed to have the self-confidence to overcome obstacles and finish
their doctoral program (attitudes: M = 5.3248, SD = .8547) and agreed to have a positive
academic satisfaction (academic satisfaction: M = 5.2340, SD = .92016). Participants somewhat
agreed regarding the value they placed on contact with the American culture (integration: M =
5.0214, SD = 1.05816). In contrast, participants felt less positive regarding their relationship
with American students (relationship with American students: M = 2.0862, SD = 1.51225). The
outcomes of student’s relationship with their academic advisor and the student’s relationship
with other professors had a four-point response scale range from 1( bad ) to 4 ( excellent).

59

Participants generally agreed they have a positive relationship with their academic advisor
(relationship with academic advisor: M = 3.4698, SD = .65064). Also, participants agreed that
they have a positive relationship with other professors in their doctoral program (relationship
with other professors: M = 3.1983, SD = .60617).
Relationship among the different outcomes
A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis showed modest positive correlations
between outcome variables. Pairs of variables were correlated with highest value of .437. These
relationships are not so high as to require forming some type of scale. The Pearson correlation
coefficients are presented in the following table.
Table 4.22
Intercorrelation analysis of the seven outcome variables
Mean
Std.
N
1
2
Deviation
1.Academic
5.2340
.92016
235
1
satisfaction
2.Attitudes
5.3248
.85747
234 .437**
1
3.Integration
5.0214 1.05816 234 .176**
.037
4.Strategies
5.6009
.62243
233 .019
.170**
.65064
232 .250** .151*
5.Student’s
3.4698
relationship
with academic
advisor
6.Student’s
3.1983
.60617
232 .142*
.164*
relationship
with other
professors
7.Student’s
3.0862 1.51225 232 .001
.005
relationship
with
American
students
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

60

3

4

5

6

1
.163*
.032

1
.064

1

.035

.057

.432*

1

.218**

.089

.091

.123

7

1

Below, I discuss the relationships that were correlated.
Academic satisfaction
Academic satisfaction had significant correlation with four of the outcomes. Academic
satisfaction was positively correlated to attitudes (r = .437, p< .01). According to Cohen (1988),
this is a medium size effect or correlation. This means that Mexican doctoral students who had
relatively high academic satisfaction were more likely to have high levels of self-confidence to
overcome obstacles and finishing their doctoral program. This result supports previous findings.
Individuals from other countries with high self-efficacy are able to adapt to the host
environment, interact with host nationals and work better than those with low self-efficacy
(Harrison et al., 1996). Given such findings, it was expected that self-confidence would be
positively related to academic satisfaction.
Academic satisfaction and integration had a small size effect or correlation (Cohen, 1988)
(r = .176, p < .01). This means that Mexican doctoral students with relatively high academic
satisfaction were likely to value the contact with the American culture. The literature suggests
that international graduate students’ interaction with American peers is related to important
benefits. Among those, “contact with American students positively influences international
students’ academic experiences” (Trice, 2004, p.671). Therefore, it was expected that the
outcome of integration was positively related to academic satisfaction.
Further, academic satisfaction and a student’s relationship with academic advisor had a
positive relationship (r = .250, p < .01). According to Cohen (1988) this relationship has a
medium size effect or correlation. Mexican doctoral students who had relatively high academic
satisfaction also agree that they had a positive relationship with their academic advisor. This
finding supports research about academic advising and academic success. Rice et al. (2009) state
61

that the relationship between a graduate student and their advisor is one of the most important
factors for graduate student success in the U.S. academic environment.
Lastly, academic satisfaction and student’s relationship with other professors had a
significant correlation (r = .142, p < .05). Mexican doctoral students who had a high level of
academic satisfaction also had a positive relationship with other professors. According to Cohen
(1988), this is a small size effect size.
Attitudes
The variable of attitude was significantly, positively correlated with three of the seven
outcomes. Attitudes and strategies had a significant correlation (r = .170, p < .01). This
correlation has a small size effect (Cohen, 1988). This result means that Mexican doctoral
students who had the self-confidence to overcome obstacles and finish their doctoral program
also were able to differentiate cultural values between their native country and the United States.
Attitudes and student’s relationship with academic advisor had a significant though
modest positive correlation (r = .151, p < .05). This finding means that Mexican doctoral
students who had self-confidence to overcome obstacles and finish their program were more
likely to have a positive relationship with their academic advisor, though the effect was small. In
addition, Mexican doctoral students who had self-confidence were more likely to have a positive
relationship with other professors in their program. (r = .164, p < .05).
Integration
Integration was significantly positively correlated with two of the seven outcomes. Since
integration is one of the most relevant factors of Berry’s model of acculturation (1997), I

62

expected these results have significant correlation with other outcomes in this model. Integration
and strategies were significantly correlated (r = .163, p< .05). According to Cohen (1988) this is
a small effect or correlation. Mexican doctoral students who value their contact with the
American culture were more likely to differentiate cultural values from their native country and
the United States. This correlation seems to make sense. In order to value contact with American
students, Mexican doctoral students must be able to find differences and similarities between
American culture and Mexican culture.
In addition, Mexican doctoral students who value their contact with the American culture
were more likely to have a positive relationship with American students (r = .218, p < .01). This
result is consistent with the literature where the frequency of international student’s social
interaction is related to a better adjusted experience abroad (Trice, 2004).
Student’s relationship with academic advisor
The student’s relationship with his or her academic advisor was significantly, positively
correlated with one of the seven outcomes. A student’s relationship with his/her academic
advisor and a student’s relationship with other professors were significantly correlated (r = .432,
p < .05). According to Cohen (1988) this is a medium size effect. Mexican doctoral students who
had a positive relationship with their academic advisor were more likely to have a positive
relationship with other professors.
Summary
In summary, some outcome measures are modestly, positively correlated. It seems that
several factors must take place for a Mexican doctoral student to have a positive acculturation
experience. For example, a student who has more self-confidence to overcome obstacles, who
63

has a positive relationship with his/her academic advisor, and who values contact with American
culture, is more likely to enjoy a high level of academic satisfaction. The more positive outcomes
a participant has the better acculturation experience. Further, it is worth noticing that the seven
outcomes are equally weighted in this study. Berry’s model (1997) does not make any comments
regarding the importance of each outcome. Further research should be done to examine Berry’s
model of acculturation (1997) and the impact of each outcome in the acculturation experience.
Comparisons of outcomes by demographics
After examining the relationship among the different outcomes, I looked at the predictors
and their relationship with the outcomes to answer the research question Does the degree of
acculturation differ from gender, academic discipline, destination, and social class?. First, I
examined the predictors that were dichotomous such as gender (male and female), type of
institution (public and private) and perceived English proficiency (fluent and very fluent). Then,
I did an analysis of variance for the predictors that were categorical variables such as academic
discipline, discrimination, father’s level of education and social support. The following
classification was used to illustrate the different significance of the p values in the tables: **** p
< .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1. Below is the analysis.
Comparison of male and female Mexican doctoral students
A t-test analysis compared male and female Mexican doctoral students’ outcomes. The
analysis showed that some outcomes were significantly different based on gender. The table
below shows that males were significantly different from females on academic satisfaction (p =
.003), and attitudes (p = .000). Inspection of the two group means indicates significantly lower

64

scores for females than males on the outcomes of academic satisfaction and attitudes. Below the
table shows the comparison of males and females and all seven outcomes.
Table 4.23
Comparison of male and female Mexican doctoral students
Variable
M
SD
N
T
Df
P
Academic satisfaction
-3.004
233
.003***
Females
5.0110 .96026 91
Males
5.3750 .86804 144
Attitudes
-3.959
232
.000****
Females
5.0549 .94707 91
Males
5.4965 .74940 143
387
232
Integration
.699
Females
5.0549 .93527 91
Males
5.0000 1.13212 143
.718
-.361
232
Strategies
Females
5.5824 .63361 91
Males
.953
5.6127 .61712 142
-.059
Relationship with academic advisor
230
Females
3.4667 .58444 90
Males
.075*
3.4718 .69132 142
-1.788 202.021
Relationship with other professors*
Females
3.1111 .56973 90
Males
.239
3.2535 .62384 142
1.181
Relationship with American student
230
Females
3.2333 1.59388 90
Males
2.9930 1.45620 142
*The t and df were adjusted because variances were not equal
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
In other words, females had lower academic satisfaction than males. Females also had
lower self-confidence to overcome obstacles to finish their doctoral program than males.
Although there were only two outcomes with significant differences related to gender, they are
important findings because academic satisfaction and self-confidence are predictors for student’s
success. Questions remain regarding the reasons why females scored lower than males in
academic satisfaction and self-confidence to overcome obstacles to finish their doctoral program.
An example to illustrate the differences in gender was stated by a participant’s comment in the
65

online survey. In the survey, a student compared the role of gender in her cultural experience as a
Mexican doctoral student in the US. She felt like she was treated differently not because of her
nationality, but because of her gender.
Comparison of public institutions and private institutions
A t-test analysis compared differences between public and private institutions in the
acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States. The analysis showed that two
outcomes were significantly different based on type of institution. Analysis of the two groups’
means indicate significantly lower scores for Mexican doctoral students in private institutions
than in public institution on the outcomes of integration (p= .000) and strategies (p=.023).
Table 4.24
Comparison of type of institutions on the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students
Variable
M
SD
N
T
Df
P
Integration*
3.693 92.042 .000****
Public
5.2036 .8861 167
Private
4.5672 1.29362 67
Strategies*
2.310 101.219 .023**
Public
5.6647 .57677 167
Private
5.4394 .70446 66
Academic satisfaction
1.207
233
.229
Public
5.2798 .90193 168
Private
5.1194 .96173 67
Attitudes
1.652
232
.100
Public
5.3832 .86245 167
Private
5.1791 .83349 67
Relationship with academic advisor
1.121
230
.264
Public
3.5000 .63006 166
Private
3.3939 .69898 66
Relationship with other professors
.740
230
.460
Public
3.2169 .60399 166
Private
3.1515 .61375 66
Relationship with American students
-.510
230
.610
Public
3.0542 1.52842 166
Private
3.1667 1.45267 66
*The t and df were adjusted because variances were not equal
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
66

Mexican doctoral students who were in private institutions had lower scores on valuing
the contact with the American culture than students in public universities. Further, Mexican
doctoral students who were in private institutions had lower scores identifying differences in
cultural values from their country and America than Mexican doctoral students from public
institutions. Since most of the studies on the acculturation of internationals students in the U.S.
have been done on single institutions, there is little research that compares the differences of
acculturation in terms of type of institutions.
Comparison of English proficiency
The variable of English proficiency refers to the participants’ perception in their ability to
express their ideas in English. This variable was not based on TOEFL scores or other standard
tests that measure English proficiency.
For a better analysis, the variable of perceived English proficiency was used as a
dichotomous variable of fluent and very fluent. Then, a t-test was used to compare the perceived
English proficiency in Mexican doctoral students in the United States.
SPSS analysis showed that three variables had significant differences. Academic
satisfaction (p = .000) and attitudes (p = .000) and relationship with other professors (p=.001).
Examination of the two groups showed lower mean scores in academic satisfaction,
attitudes and relationship with other professors for Mexican doctoral students who perceive their
English proficiency as fluent when compared with those who perceive their English proficiency
as very fluent.
The following table shows the t-test summary.

67

Table 4.25
Comparison of English proficiency on the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students
Variable
M
SD
N
T
Df
P
Academic satisfaction
-4.348 231 .000****
Fluent
4.5938 1.29164 32
Very fluent
5.3284 .80724 201
Attitudes
-7.476 230 .000****
Fluent
4.3750 1.18458 32
Very fluent
5.4650 .68683 200
Integration
-.074 230 .941
Fluent
5.0000 1.04727 32
Very fluent
5.0150 1.06322 200
Strategies
-1.258 229 .210
Fluent
5.4688 .67127 32
Very fluent
5.6181 .61535 199
Relationship with academic advisor
-1.811 228 .072*
Fluent
3.2813 .68318 32
Very fluent
3.5051 .64318 198
Relationship with other professor
-3.293 228 .001***
Fluent
2.8750 .60907 32
Very fluent
3.2475 .59128 198
Relationship with American students
-.787 228 .432
Fluent
2.8750 1.47561 32
Very fluent
3.1010 1.51134 198

**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
In other words, participants with very fluent perceived English proficiency had higher
academic satisfaction than those participants with fluent perceived English proficiency. Further,
participants who perceived their English skills as very fluent had more self-confidence to
overcome obstacles and finish their program than those with fluent perceived English skills.
These findings are consistent with the literature of the many impacts of the student’s level of
English proficiency. It has been found that perceived English proficiency is the most important
predictor for the perceived level of academic difficulty (Xu, 1991).

68

In addition, although some participants had advanced in their program, they felt
disadvantaged compared to the native English speakers. A participant commented the
following:
To know English is not only to know the grammar; but also to know how to
communicate. Students who apply to doctoral programs in the United States should have
some type of training in their English abilities such an online program to improve the
English communication skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking).
One student made a distinction of the cultural adaptation and the English barrier
regarding the academic discipline. “It has been difficult to be able to express my ideas in writing.
Above all, the students in the area of Humanities are challenged by the volume of vocabulary
needed to succeed and that American students already have”.
English proficiency may also affect the use of support services in the U.S. institutions. A
participant for this study pointed out in the online survey that “although there were a lot of
programs in place to help international students in their adaptation such as an international
center, a psychology center, and different sport groups; the inability to speak English prevented
people from utilizing the programs”.
Analysis of variance
An analysis of variances was carried out for the rest of the predictors to understand the
relationship with the outcomes.
Academic discipline
Surprisingly, a one-way ANOVA test found no statistical difference among the different
academic disciplines and the outcomes. Although the variable of strategies was statistically
different, it did not pass Levene’s test.

69

Table 4.26
One-way ANOVA summary for academic discipline
Sum of
squares
Academic satisfaction
Between groups
.201
Within groups
27.802
Total
28.005
Attitudes
Between groups
.739
Within groups
25.833
Total
26.571
Integration
Between groups
.401
Within groups
43.531
Total
43.931
Strategies
Between groups
.498
Within groups
7.207
Total
7.705
Student’s relationship with American
students
Between groups
.315
Within groups
30.405
Total
30.720
Student’s relationship with academic
advisor
Between groups
1.023
Within groups
52.816
Total
53.839
Student’s relationship with other
professors
Between groups
.684
Within groups
44.935
Total
45.619
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.

Df

Mean
Square

F

Sig

3
214
217

.067
.130

.516

3
213
216

.246
.121

2.030 .111

3
214
217

.134
.203

.657

3
213
216

.166
.034

4.908 .003***

3
214
217

.105
.142

.739

3
214
217

.341
.247

1.382 .249

3
214
217

.228
.210

1.086 .359

.672

.580

.530

Discrimination
There was a statistical difference found among the levels of perceived discrimination on
academic satisfaction F (5,226) 3.144, p = .009, and attitudes F (5,225) 3.068, p=.011. Levene’s
test supported the assumption of equal variances of two dependent groups on the dependent
variable. Although the variables of student’s relationship with American students and student’s
70

relationship with other professors were statistically different; they did not pass Levene’s test. A
Tukey post-hoc test revealed that students who perceived discrimination as totally disagreed
(5.4875) and highly agreed (4.7273) differed in their academic satisfaction. Likewise, students
who perceived discrimination as highly agreed (4.9091) and totally disagreed (5.5696) have
differences in self-confidence to overcome obstacles. Below is the summary table.
Table 4.27
One-way analysis of variance summary table comparing discrimination
Sum of
Df
Mean
squares
Square
Academic satisfaction
Between groups
12.769
5
2.554
Within groups
183.576
226 .812
Total
196.345
231
Attitudes
Between groups
10.847
5
2.169
Within groups
159.084
225 .707
Total
169.931
230
Integration
Between groups
10.645
5
2.129
Within groups
248.317
226 1.099
Total
258.961
231
Strategies
Between groups
1.583
5
.317
Within groups
87.975
225 .391
Total
89.558
230
Student’s relationship with American
students
Between groups
44.752
5
8.950
Within groups
474.135
224 2.117
Total
518.887
229
Student’s relationship with academic
advisor
Between groups
2.954
5
.591
Within groups
94.333
224
Total
97.287
229
Student’s relationship with other
professors
Between groups
4.479
5
.896
Within groups
79.717
224
Total
84.196
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
71

F

Sig

3.144 .009***

3.068 .011**

1.938 .089*

.810

.544

4.229 .001***

1.403 .224

2.517 .031**

These findings support the research related to perceived discrimination and acculturation
in international students (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). Therefore, it was expected to find differences
in the levels of discrimination and outcomes such as academic satisfaction.
Father’s level of education
There was only a statistical difference in the father’s level of education and integration (F
(2,213) 4.125, p = .017). The following table shows the summary.
Table 4.28
One way analysis of variance comparing father’s level of education
Sum of squares Df Mean Square
Integration
Between groups
9.396
2
4.698
Within groups
242.604
213
1.139
Total
252.000
215
Academic satisfaction
Between groups
1.594
3.189
2
Within groups
.846
180.293
213
Total
183.481
215
Attitudes
Between groups
.604
1.209
2
Within groups
.761
161.284
212
Total
162.493
214
Strategies
Between groups
1.059
2.117
2
Within groups
.375
79.483
212
Total
81.600
214
Relationship with academic advisor
Between groups
.371
.741
2
Within groups
.427
90.963
213
Total
91.704
215
Relationship with other professors
Between groups
.858
1.716
2
Within groups
.367
78.117
213
Total
79.833
215
Relationship with American students
Between groups
3.555
7.110
2
Within groups
2.275
484.552
213
Total
491.662
215
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
72

F

Sig

4.125 .017**

1.884

.155

.794

.453

2.824 .062*

.868

.421

2.340 .099*

1.563

.212

This finding is important because based on the literature first-generation students face
more difficulties to successfully complete their program (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004). However, I
expected to find greater differences in the father’s level of education and other outcomes such as
academic satisfaction or attitudes. Questions remain about how fathers’ level of education impact
the outcome of integration.
Social support
There was a statistical difference among the levels of social support on strategies F
(4,226) 5.366, p = .000 and student’s relationship with academic advisor F (4,227) 4.224, p =
.003. A post hoc test was unable to be performed because at least one group has fewer than two
cases. Following, the table shows the results.
Table 4.29
One way analysis of variances comparing social support
Sum of
Df
squares
Academic satisfaction
Between groups
2.480
4
Within groups
192.951
227
Total
195.431
231
Attitudes
Between groups
6.081
4
Within groups
164.213
226
Total
170.294
230
Integration
Between groups
10.372
4
Within groups
249.559
227
Total
259.931
231
Strategies
Between groups
7.751
4
Within groups
81.608
226
Total
89.359
230
Student’s relationship with
academic advisor
Between groups
6.774
4
Within groups
91.015
227
Total
97.789
231
Student’s relationship with other
73

Mean
Square

F

Sig

.620
.850

.729

.573

1.520
.727

2.092

.083*

2.593
1.099

2.359

.054*

1.938
.361

5.366

.000****

1.693
.401

4.224

.003***

Table 4.29 (cont’d)
Professors
Between groups
2.235
Within groups
82.645
Total
84.879
Student’s relationship with other
professors
Between groups
9.511
Within groups
518.765
Total.
528.276
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.

4
227
231

.559
.364

1.535

.193

4
227
231

2.378
2.285

1.040

.387

In summary, regarding the research question Does the degree of acculturation differ from
gender, academic discipline, destination and social class? we observe in this study that the
degree of acculturation differs from gender in terms of academic satisfaction and attitudes. The
level of acculturation differs from destination in terms of integration and strategies. Finally, the
degree of acculturation differs from social class with a proxy of father’s level of education in
terms of integration.
The relative importance of the predictors for each of the outcomes
To continue answering the second research question Does the degree of acculturation
differ by gender, academic discipline, destination, and social class?, multiple regressions were
conducted to investigate the best predictors for the seven different outcomes. Regressions were
made considering all predictors as continuous variables. Because of the exploratory nature of this
research, for this study I considered the different significance of the predictors by the following
classification: **** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
Academic satisfaction
A significant regression equation was found on academic satisfaction. F (11,182) = 4.505,
2

p = < .001 and had an adjusted R value of .167. This indicates that 16.7% of the variance in

74

academic satisfaction was explained by the model. According to Cohen (1988), this is a medium
effect. Results of the regression analysis showed that the type of institution and perceived
English proficiency significantly predict academic satisfaction when all eleven variables were
included. The regression model demonstrated that the variables of type of institution (β =-.151,
p=.030) and perceived English proficiency (β = .351, p=.000) were positive predictors of
academic satisfaction. Below the table illustrates the results.
Table 4.30
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting academic satisfaction (N= 193).
Variable
Estimate
Std Err
Std Coeff
T
p-val
Gender
.221
.138
.113
1.602
.111
Age
.004
.014
.022
.301
.764
Length of stay
.001
.051
.001
.020
.984
Self-reported GPA
-.157
.274
-.039
-.572
.568
Academic discipline
.039
.063
.042
.618
.538
Mother’s level of
-.050
.098
-.039
-.507
.613
education
Father’s level of
.151
.108
.109
1.400
.163
education
Institution
-.321
.147
-.151
-2.186 .030**
English proficiency
.367
.076
.351
4.813
.000****
Discrimination
-.045
.045
-.072
-1.009 .315
Social support
.073
.077
.065
.947
.345
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
This finding is consistent with the t-test analysis done previously where English
proficiency was found with significant difference regarding academic satisfaction. Clearly, this
variable also predicts academic satisfaction when all the eleven predictors are included. Further,
this finding is consistent with research related to English proficiency and academic performance.
As English proficiency is one of the most challenging difficulties for international students, a
lack of English skills is likely to affect the students’ academic performance (Mori, 2000).
Further, Lee et al. (1981) found that the English proficiency was related to academic satisfaction.
In contrast, unlike the t-test results source of institutional control (public/private) was not
75

statistically significantly related to academic satisfaction. Aside from the statistical significance
of the predictors of English proficiency and type of institutions, there are several patterns worth
noticing regarding gender. Surprisingly, the variable of gender did not appear to predict
academic satisfaction. This finding is consistent to the results in the study of Perrucci and Hu
(1995), where gender of international graduate students does not affect satisfaction; however, the
t-test of gender shown previously found that there was statistical difference regarding the
academic satisfaction between males and females when gender was considered as a single
variable. Females showed lower scores for academic satisfaction than males.
Attitudes
A significant regression equation was found in the outcome of attitudes. F (11, 180) =
2

9.314, p < .001. The adjusted R value for this variable was .324. This indicates that 32.4% of
the variance in attitude was explained by the model. According to Cohen (1988), this is a large
effect. Below is the summary table.
Table 4.31
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting attitudes (N = 192)
Variable
Estimate
Std. Err
Std. Coeff
T
Gender
.288
.112
.163
2.559
Age
-.007
.012
-.039
-.603
Length of stay
.016
.042
.024
.388
Self-reported GPA
.298
.225
.108
1.771
Academic discipline
.008
.052
.010
.158
Mother’s level of
.010
.081
.009
.123
education
Father’s level of
-.157
.089
-.125
-1.765
education
Institution
-.172
.120
-.090
-1.435
English proficiency
.504
.062
.533
8.079
Discrimination
.003
.037
.004
.069
Social support
.088
.063
.087
1.397
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.

76

p-val
.011**
.548
.698
.078*
.875
.902
.079*
.153
.000****
.945
.164

The regression model demonstrated that gender (β = .163, p= .011) and perceived English
proficiency (β = .533, p=.000) significantly predict attitudes when all eleven variables. Selfreported GPA was significant predictor as well (β =.108, p=.078 < .10). The significance of the
variable of gender is consistent with the t-test done previously on gender regarding attitudes.
Female participants scored lower than male participants concerning their self-confidence in
overcoming obstacles to finish the doctoral program. Further research is needed to determine
how gender predicts attitudes when the eleven variables are included. Again, perceived English
proficiency was found to be significant when predicting student’s self-confidence to overcome
obstacles to finish their doctoral program. This finding reflects Barratt and Huba (1994) findings
that international student’s English proficiency positively increased self-esteem.
Integration
The significant regression equation for this model is F (11, 18) = 2.865, p = < .005. The
Adjusted R2 value for integration was .097. This indicates that 9.7% of the variance in
integration was explained by this model. This is a small effect.
From this model, type of institution (β = -.179, p= .014) and discrimination (β = -.223,
p=.003) significantly predict integration when all eleven variables are included. Another
significant predictor in this model was age (β = .144, p= .058). The significance in the
relationship between type of institution and integration was also found in the t-test done
previously when type of institution was considered as a single variable. This finding suggests
further research is needed to determine how the type of institution predicts the outcome of
strategies. Below is the summary table for this regression.

77

Table 4.32
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting integration (N =193)
Variable
Estimate
Std Err
Std Coeff
T
Gender
-.072
.157
-.034
-.461
Age
.031
.016
.144
1.909
Length of stay
.079
.058
.096
1.359
Self-reported GPA
-.367
.313
-.083
-1.174
Academic discipline
.017
.072
.017
.234
Mother’s level of
.106
.112
.077
.947
education
Father’s level of
-.194
.123
-.129
-1.581
education
Institution
-.417
.167
-.179
-2.494
English proficiency
-.030
.087
-.027
-.349
Discrimination
-.153
.051
-.223
-2.977
Social
.061
.088
.050
.695
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.

p-val
.645
.058*
.176
.242
.815
.345
.116
.014**
.727
.003**
.488

Discrimination and integration may be opposite related. The more the participant
perceived discrimination in terms of race or nationality, the less integrated he or she is with the
host community. In contrast, the less the participant perceived discrimination in terms of race or
nationality, the more contact he or she will have with the host community and the more
integrated the participant may be to the American culture. Age was also found to be a significant
predictor of the outcome of integration in this study. However, very little research has been done
regarding age and integration of international students. Maybe older participants can be more
mature and are able to interact with American students than younger participants.
Strategies
The significant strategies outcome regression equation found was F (11,180) = 2.913, p =
< .005. The Adjusted R2 value for this outcome was .099. Thus, 9.9 % of the variance in
strategies was explained by this model. This is a small effect. Academic discipline (β = .039,
p=.039), father’s level of education (β = -.223, p=.007) and social support (β = .188, p= .009)
significantly predict the outcome of strategies in this regression model when all eleven variables

78

are included. Another significant predictor in this model was the variable of self-reported GPA (.123, p=.084). Below is the summary table.
Table 4.33
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting strategies (N = 192)
Variable
Estimate
Std Err
Std Coeff
T
Gender
.011
.095
.008
.113
Age
-.011
.010
-.087
-1.156
Length of stay
-.017
.035
-.035
-.495
Self-reported GPA
-.331
.191
-.123
-1.737
Academic discipline
-.090
.043
-.148
-2.083
Mother’s level of
.072
.068
.086
1.058
education
Father’s level of
-.203
.074
-.223
-2.746
education
Institution
-.188
.101
-.134
-1.866
English proficiency
.069
.052
.100
1.313
Discrimination
-.014
.031
-.033
-.439
Social support
.139
.053
.188
2.622
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.

p-val
.910
.249
.621
.084*
.039**
.291
.007***
.064*
.191
.661
.009**

The finding of significance in the variable of academic discipline is consistent with some
other published research regarding disciplinary differences and international students. Although
it is only observed the difference in the outcome of strategies based on academic disciplines in
this study, further research should look at the nature of the difference. Trice and Yoo (2007)
distinguish the experience of international students between those who are in the hard fields and
those who are in the soft disciplines. The authors state that “international students in soft fields
may be encouraged more often by their professors to think divergently and to view subject
knowledge through their own cultural lens” (p. 45). Therefore, according to Trice and Yoo,
international students in the soft academic disciplines would have higher levels of positive
experience than those in the hard academic disciplines.

79

Student’s relationship with American students
The regression equation for the outcome of student’s relationship with American students
was not significant. F (11, 181) = 1.977, p = .033 (no significant). The Adjusted R2 value for the
student’s relationship with American students was .053. A small 5.3 % of the variance in
student’s relationship with American students is explained by this model. Discrimination (β = 194, p= .012) significantly predicts student’s relationship with American students in this
regression model when all eleven variables are included. Other significant predictors were
gender (β= -.138, p= .070) and social support (β = -.128, p = .082). The following table shows
the results.
Table 4.34
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting student’s relationship with
American students (N = 193)
Variable
Estimate
Std Err
Std Coeff
T
p-val
Gender
-.420
.230
-.138
-1.825 .070*
Age
-.039
.024
-.128
-1.654 .100
Length of stay
.057
.085
.049
.668
.505
Self-reported GPA
.376
.458
.059
-821
.413
Academic discipline
-.123
.105
-.086
-1.173 .242
Mother’s level of
-.045
.164
-.023
-.277
.782
education
Father’s level of
-.129
.180
-.060
-.718
.473
education
Institution
.328
.245
.098
1.336
.183
English proficiency
.085
.127
.052
.671
.503
Discrimination
-.190
.075
-.194
-2.533 .012**
Social support
-.225
.129
-.128
-1.748 .082*
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
Although the model for the student’s relationship with American students was found to
be insignificant, there are several findings worth noticing regarding the predictors. I expected
discrimination to be a predictor of the relationship with American students and this finding is
consistent to research done by Perrucci and Hu (1995). The authors found that international
students who perceived little discrimination appeared to better facilitate social contact with the
80

host community. Therefore, the less perceived discrimination, the better interaction with
American students. Moreover, regarding discrimination, some students mentioned in the survey
how racial attitudes were often a result of the racial composition of the state where they were
studying. This made some feel it was more difficult for international students to interact with
American students. Social support was found to be a predictor of the student’s relationship with
American students as well.
The social support variable relates to the communication international students had with
family and friends back in their home country. Thus, further research needs to be done to
determine the nature of the relationship. One could think that the relationship may be opposite.
Maybe international students who have high communication with their family and friends back
home have low interaction with American students and participants who had low communication
with people from their home country had more interaction with American students.
Student’s relationship with academic advisor
The regression equation was not significant for the outcome of the student’s relationship
with academic advisor. F (11, 181) = 1.011, p = .438 (no significant). The only significant
predictor in this model was social support (β = .138, p = .068). Below, the table shows the
summary.
Table 4.35
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting student’s relationship with
academic advisor (N = 193)
Variable
Estimate
Std Err
Std Coeff
T
P-val
Gender
-.006
.104
-.005
-.062
.951
Age
-.001
.011
-.005
-.061
.951
Length of stay
-.043
.039
-.082
-1.102 .272
Self-reported GPA
.252
.208
.090
1.214
.227
Academic discipline
-.040
.048
-.062
-.830
.408

81

Table 4.35 (cont’d)
Mother’s level of
education
Father’s level of
education
Institution
English proficiency
Discrimination
Social support

.001

.074

.001

.017

.987

.037

.082

.-38

.448

.655

-.122
.029
-.030
.107

.111
.058
.034
.058

-.083
.040
-.069
.138

-1.100
.499
-.881
1.839

.273
.618
.380
.068*

**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
Based on the previously discussed literature, I expected to find a stronger relationship
between the academic advisor and student outcomes. I did not expect to find that within this
subset of the American graduate student population, the student’s relationship with academic
advisor would be insignificant, since much of the research finds the academic advisor’s
relationship to be a big factor on the acculturation of international students (Charles & Steward,
1991; Trice & Yoo, 2007). This may result from the academic advisor being the one who guides
the student to navigate in the doctoral program and advocates for the students.
Student’s relationship with professors
The regression equation for student’s relationship with professors was found not
2

significant in this model. F (11, 181) = 2.013, p = .029 (no significant). The Adjusted R value
for this outcome was .055.
This indicates that only 5.5 % of the variance on the student’s relationship with
professors was explained by this model. According to Cohen (1988), this is a small effect. Only
self-reported GPA (β = .205, p= .005) significantly predicts student’s relationship with
professors when all eleven variables are included.
The table below shows the results including all the predictors from this investigation.
82

Table 4.36
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary predicting student’s relationship with
professors (N = 193)
Variable
Estimate
Std Err
Std Coeff
T
p-val
Gender
.116
.092
.094
1.251
.213
Age
.001
.010
.005
.067
.947
Length of stay
-.054
.034
-.114
-1.568 .119
Self-reported GPA
.524
.184
.205
2.844
.005**
Academic discipline
.048
.042
.082
1.124
.262
Mother’s level of
.030
.066
.038
.462
.645
education
Father’s level of
.064
.072
.074
.887
.376
education
Institution
-.059
.099
-.044
-.597
.551
English proficiency
.070
.051
.106
1.364
.174
Discrimination
-.023
.030
-.059
-.773
.441
Social support
.016
.052
.022
.302
.763
**** p < .001. ***p < .01. **p <.05. *p < .1.
I also did not expect to have student’s relationship with other professors to be not
significant. Further research should be done to determine how self-reported GPA predicts
student’s relationship with professors in their program. Perhaps, students with a better doctoral
GPA have more self-confidence have a more positive relationship with professors than students
who have low GPA.
Summary of the relative importance of predictors
There is not a single variable that predicts all the outcomes. Since the outcomes have
equal weight in the model, I looked at the frequency of the predictors. The variables of perceived
English proficiency, discrimination and type of institution were predictors for two outcomes with
p value < .05. I also looked at the variables that were significant at p value <.1 since the nature of
this study is exploratory.
To illustrate the summary of the relative importance of predictors and the outcomes,
below there is a table.
83

Table 4.37
Predictors and outcomes
Outcome

Academic satisfaction
Attitudes
Integration
Strategies
Student relationship
with American
students
Student relationship
with other professors
Student relationship
with academic
advisor

Significant predictors with p value <.05

Institution
Gender
Institution
Academic
discipline
Discrimination

English Proficiency
English Proficiency
Discrimination
Father’s level of
Education

Social
support

Significant
predictors with p
value < .1

Age
Self-reported
GPA
Gender and Social
support

Self-reported
GPA
Social support

Interestingly, a pattern seen in this study is the relative unimportance of some predictors.
Gender only showed to predict one outcome in this model and as near significant predictor for
student’s relationship with American students. As expected, discrimination predicted the
student’s relationship with American students and integration. Social support only predicted the
outcome of strategies and student’s relationship with American students and student’s
relationship with academic advisor. Self-reported GPA also predicted only one outcome related
to the student’s relationship with other professors.
It is clear from the data in this study that the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students
in the United States is shaped by their perceived English proficiency, gender, discrimination and
type of institution. Nevertheless, perceived English skills can facilitate interaction with American
countries and degrees perceived discrimination. Further, the level of perceived English
proficiency can facilitate participation in programs in place to support international doctoral
students and can facilitate the utilization of other resources that help cultural adjustment of
84

international doctoral students. Lastly, perceived English proficiency can help students to
integrate not only to the university, but the local community and to deal with day to day
problems.
Other factors in the findings
Cultural influence from other countries
Although this study looked at acculturation as the cultural adjustment to the United
States, an interesting finding was related to the influence of students’ learning experience from
other cultures. A participant stated the following in the online survey:
Besides the American culture, I have had the opportunity to learn about the culture of
other countries because of my colleagues and friends from Colombia, Turkey, Argentina,
Germany, Kuwait, Egypt, Chile and Saudi Arabia. I am happy to share with them culture,
customs and everyday worries. I feel more influenced by them than by the American
culture”. Further, a student commented that he/she had close friendship with colleges
from China, South Korea, Turkey and India.
Another student pointed out that “More than the contact with the American culture, I
value the contact with the multicultural environment at Silicon Valley”. In addition, one Mexican
doctoral student said “In my experience, it has been valuable the contact with other international
students in the U.S. That is a great advantage because the ethnic and cultural diversity that
international students bring”.
Complexity of the relationship with academic advisor
The online survey showed that most of the respondents had a positive relationship with
their academic advisor. 232 participants answered this question. 55.2% (118 participants) of the
total rated their relationship with their academic advisor as excellent. 37.1% (86 participants) of

85

the total rated their relationship as good. 7.3% (17 participants) rated their relationship as regular
and only 0.4% (1 participant) rated his/her relationship as bad.
The relationship with the academic advisor is a strong component of how international
students succeed academically. The advisor – student relationship is not limited to the meetings a
doctoral student may have. It is true that probably the more often the student meets with the
academic advisor, the better interaction and the better understanding of the problems and
challenges an international doctoral student has. However, the relationship is more complex.
Following, there is an example of a positive relationship with an academic advisor. The
respondent illustrated the different ways where she felt understood and supported by her
academic advisor:
My academic advisor is bilingual and she is interested in doing research in Latin
America. That has made the difference for me because if at some point I am not able to
communicate, I simply speak Spanish. On the other hand, she understands my
frustrations. I do not want to be an arrogant saying that I am an excellent student, but I
believe that I have been able to manage the pressure to study in another language, to live
far from home, to study, and to be a half-time research assistant. In addition, I am a
volunteer in a Latin student organization and I am greatly achieving the academic
requirements. I believe that all that makes me a good student”.
To illustrate another example of the complexity of the relationship between student and
academic advisor, a participant commented he/she had two academic advisors, one of them was
out of the university and the communication is via e-mail and Skype. Although this may be
difficult, the student perceived the relationship as excellent because he/she could contact them at
any time when there is a question or concern. In addition, one of the respondents explained that

86

at the beginning there was difficult the relationship with his academic advisor. He had to change
advisor twice to finally feel comfortable with the relationship and now the work between both of
them is excellent.
Source of funding
Another interesting finding from this study was related to the students’ source of funding.
As was mentioned before, participants were sponsored CONACYT students. A question was
asked in the online survey regarding the different sources of funding to support their doctoral
program. Participants were asked to select all the options that applied to them. One of the options
was the CONACYT scholarship. 219 participants selected this option. However, we know that
the list was based on current sponsored students, including all of the 235 participants.
Interestingly, a lot of participants had funding sources other than solely the CONACYT
scholarship. 110 participants reported a research assistantship as a source of funding in addition
to the CONACYT scholarship. 119 participants indicated a teaching assistantship was a source
of funding in addition to the CONACYT scholarship. 68 participants reported that family funds
were necessary in addition to the CONACYT scholarship. 49 selected work as an additional
source of funding and 101 participants selected savings as an additional source of funding.
I expected most of the participants would have only a CONACYT scholarship. This
findings illustrate the financial struggle international students have, even for international
sponsored students, to meet the financial obligations that comes with studying in the United
States.
Though an outsider may see such a funding package such as CONACYT as generous, the
survey results clearly show that the scholarship alone is insufficient to meet the needs of most
students.

87

Family
Part of the comments regarding relationships explained that some Mexican doctoral
students had family (spouses and children); therefore, they tried to spend their free time with
them. Regarding participants’ parental status, 223 participants responded to this question. 74.0%
(165 participants) did not have any children and only 26.0% (58 participants) indicated they had
children. The question remains of how the process of acculturation might differ between those
students with children and those students without any children; however, a participant
commented on how being a mother affects her academic performance.
My academic performance is good, but I believe it could be better if I did not have any
children. It is difficult to take care of the kids and be a single mother. I am fortunate to
have friends and neighbors that help me out. My family from Mexico visits me every
year and they help me a lot too when they come.
Chapter summary
Based on Berry’s model of acculturation (1997) a construct of acculturation was built to
examine the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States. This study
integrated Berry’s framework to initiate the analysis of the complex process of looking at factors
that affect Mexican doctoral student’s acculturation. Seven outcomes and eleven predictors were
selected to develop a model. The analysis of the data suggests there is some significant
correlation among the seven outcomes. Further, results shows that different variables predict
different outcomes and the importance of each outcome is hard to measure because all the
outcomes in the model are equally weighted. Nevertheless, perceived English proficiency and
gender were found to be important predictors of academic satisfaction and self-confidence to
overcome obstacles and finish the doctoral program. Further, differences in gender were found in
88

student’s acculturation. Other findings included the cultural influence from other countries,
source of funding and the family status of the participants. In the next chapter, I will discuss the
findings and explore the implications this has for policymakers, educators, and government
officials.

89

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In this final chapter, I review the purpose of the study, the research questions, and
methodology used in the work. I then discuss the results, limitations and implications of the
study. The chapter concludes with directions for future research as well as practical
recommendations and conclusions.
Overview of the study
The current study investigated the acculturation experience of Mexican doctoral students
in the United States. The data analysis for this study looked to answer the following research
questions: What factors affect the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students? Does the degree
of acculturation differ by gender, academic discipline, destination, and social class? For this
research, an online survey was conducted from September to December of 2012 through survey
monkey. Participants were Mexican doctoral students sponsored by the Mexican National
Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) in the United States to investigate the
experiences of this understudied population. CONACYT is the Mexican institution that supports
students abroad. The response rate for this study was 52%. Of the 450 Mexican-sponsored
doctoral students that were contacted, 235 completed the online survey.
By and large, doctoral students from Mexico studying in the United States indicated they
had a positive experience while studying in American institutions. About 92% indicated their
experience was either good (119 participants) or excellent (95 participants). A bit less than 8%
rated their experience as average; only one participant indicated his/her experience to be bad.
According to Perucci & Ho (1995), “positive experiences of international graduate students are
influenced by a number of individual and social resources” (p. 507). Following, I discuss
90

significant findings of this study regarding relevant factors that affect Mexican doctoral students’
acculturation in American institutions. In addition, in this section I discuss the findings and their
relationship with previous research.
Discussion of the results
1. Mexicans students faced similar challenges to other international students in the
acculturation to their doctoral programs in the United States. Similar to other international
graduate students, Mexican doctoral students face challenges by virtue of being foreigners.
Among those, English proficiency, perceived discrimination and the lack of local social support
were found to be some similar challenges to the acculturation of international students.
English proficiency
Despite the fact that only 10 % of Mexican doctoral students perceived their English
proficiency as low, findings in this study suggests that English fluency was a challenge even for
those participants who rated their English as good or excellent. This finding is consistent to
previous research. Poyrazli and Kavanaugh’s (2006) study on the international graduate students
showed that mastering English skills was one of the major difficulties in their acculturation.
Along the same lines, Trice (2004) found that communicating well in English was positive
related to international student’s acculturation. A possible explanation for the conflict between
participants’ perception and the findings of this study may be that participants’ perception of
their English is fluent in some aspects of English such as reading and writing and they may have
not considered speaking in class or doing dissertation research. Another possibility could be that
their perception of English was not accurate. A t-test analysis founded that self-perceived level
of English was positively related to the self-confidence. Maybe, participants exaggerated about
their perception of English proficiency due to their high level of self-confidence.
91

Discrimination
This study looked at self-perceived discrimination as a factor that affected Mexican
doctoral student’s acculturation. Students choose from a 6 item Likert Scale about their
agreement or disagreement as to how they felt they were treated differently by other students
based on their race and/or their nationality. Literature shows that perceived discrimination affects
student’s cultural adaptation and academic performance by increasing the level of acculturative
stress (Wei, Heppner, Mallen, Ku, Liao& Wu, 2007). Further, Berry’s (1997) model of
acculturation included discrimination when the author illustrated one of the four dimensions of
acculturation. In this model, a student who experienced discrimination would be placed in the
dimension of marginalization. Here, the student would experience a lack of interest in the
American culture.
Although 65.5% of participants disagreed at some level with the statement that they
perceived themselves victims of discrimination, findings in this study showed that discrimination
was a challenge faced by the participants. Discrimination determined the outcome of integration
and student’s relationship with American students. There may be several reasons for this
conflict. First, participants may not want to show their true feelings about being discriminated
against because it is perceived as a sign of weakness or a lack of success in their doctoral
program. Second, most of the respondents were in their third and fourth year of their doctoral
program. Perhaps students who were advanced in their program may have been able to learn
how to navigate the American system and therefore, to understand better how to manage selfperceived discrimination. However, research shows that discrimination is not “easily removed”
(Trice, 2004, p.685).

92

Social support
The variable of social support relates to the agreement or disagreement on the
participants communication with family and friends back in their home country of Mexico. This
study is consistent with other studies where contact with one’s own culture (family and friends
from home country and international students in American institution) was a factor in social
support as a helpful way to decrease academic stressors (Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003). Other
studies have measured social support based on the number of people from their country
(compatriots) to whom they can turn when they need help. Also, social support has been
measured with questions related to how satisfied participants are with the support they received
from their compatriots (Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987). Berry (1997) stated that
students who may experience isolation may have high levels of social support from international
students from their same country. International students in the United States who just socialize
with international students from their same country, speak their own language and do not
socialize with American students are more likely to have poorer social adjustment (Poyrazli et al,
2004).
Similar to the experience of other international students, Mexican international students
showed that they maintained a high level of social support. In this study, 96.6 % of Mexican
doctoral students in the United State agreed that they communicated with family and friends
back home on some level. However, international students must build a new social network in
the United State to adjust to the new culture. The findings in this study showed that the
participants did not have much interaction with American students, which according to Poyrazli
et al. (2004), it can affect the student’s cultural adjustment.

93

In this study social support was found to predict significantly the outcome of strategies
(p=.000) and the outcome of student’s relationship with their academic advisor (p=.003). In
other words, students who communicate with family and friends back home frequently had a
significant difference in identifying variations from values from their home country and
American culture. Further, Mexican doctoral students who communicate with family and friends
back home frequently had a significant difference in their relationship with their academic
advisor.
2. Findings in this study showed that some participants’ acculturation experiences are
best examined through the student’s nationality rather than a generic international student label.
The sample had a unique characteristic regarding the participant’s social class status. The level
of parental education for recipients of CONACYT grants was much higher than the average
educational attainment in Mexico. According to the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and
Geography (INEGI), the average educational attainment in Mexico by 2010 was 8.6 years
(INEGI, 2012). About 70% of participants in this study indicated their father attained at least a
college-level education. Moreover, about 55% of the respondents indicated their mother with at
least a college-level education. More research is needed to determine whether the same pattern
holds true for CONACYT sponsored students studying doctoral programs in other countries and
if data from previous cohorts of CONACYT scholars show a level of parents’ education superior
to the general population of Mexico. Such results raise a serious question about such academic
support scholarships and who benefits from them. While my own case demonstrates that even
lower-income Mexicans can successfully compete for these scholarships, the results may also
suggest that there is a need to consider how to increase participation by lower-income groups.
Nonetheless, in the last couple of years, the CONACYT program has established different

94

strategies in an effort to diversify participants. Now, when they announce their annual
competition for the scholarships, CONACYT opens additional announcements for scholarships
abroad for every Mexican state, instead of having only a single announcement. This new strategy
ensures to have applicants from all the country. Another finding reflective of the Mexican culture
in general is the underrepresentation of Mexican female doctoral students. More males than
females participated in the online survey. This result is expected as this distribution is consistent
with the total population contacted to participate in the survey. Simply put, for many segments of
Mexican society, doctoral-level study is considered largely to be the domain of males. The
Mexican culture influences the expected roles of females and males in the Mexican society.
Males have higher levels of education than women, who are often expected to get married early
and quit studying. According to the 2010 Mexican census (INEGI 2013), the percentage of
Mexicans 15 years-old or older who quit school was higher for females than males. More
research is needed on the role of the impact of Mexican culture on the underrepresentation of
Mexican doctoral female students in the United States. Moreover, although participants from this
study had a full scholarship from CONACYT, results showed that most of them had additional
sources of funding to support their doctoral studies. This finding suggests that a single source of
support may be insufficient for this particular population and that a scholarship does not
guarantee the student’s success, persistence or graduation. It is worth noting that CONACYT
requires sponsored students to be enrolled as full-time students but does not prohibit them for
taking other forms of funding or seeking outside employment. These results show that
participants may be devoting more time in additional work to support themselves and their
families financially. This is quite consistent with the experiences of many domestic students..
However, it could cause a conflict with CONACYT’s view. It is possible that CONACYT would

95

expect Mexican sponsored doctoral students to commit themselves more to their doctoral
program rather than spending their limited time in other activities. Furthermore, it is possible that
the CONACYT sponsorship was the only way for Mexican participants to study a doctoral
program in the United States because they had some kind of financial assurance for at least three
years in their doctoral program, which it may be different for some domestic students who have
assistantships on a semester or an annual basis. However, it also is relatively incomplete, as
three years is not generally sufficient to complete a US doctoral program, Therefore, the
experience of CONACYT students would likely vary from those who study on competitive
endowed fellowships, such as some of those offered by Michigan State University’s College of
Education like the Erickson Research Fellowships, where recipients are guaranteed five years of
funding that essentially covers the entire duration of their studies.
The main destinations of Mexican doctoral students were institutions in states in the
south and west region of the United States. This preference is likely because of the proximity to
Mexico, the opportunities offered by US border institution such as in-state tuition and the larger
and more prolific populations of Hispanics in these states. In addition, it is easier for participants
to travel and visit their family when they study in American states close to Mexico. Heavy
immigration and large numbers of Spanish-speakers may make states such as California or New
Mexico seem more appealing to the Mexican students. For example, for this study, The
University of Arizona was the institution with the highest number of respondents with 13
participants, followed by Arizona State University with 10 respondents. There is a higher
possibility to find a Mexican student in these institutions than in one from the northeast or the
midwest region such as The University of Maine or The University of Michigan. Further
research is needed to examine Mexican doctoral students’ choice of the American institution,

96

especially the roles of institutional proximity versus the quality and relevance of the doctoral
program. Was the institution chosen for the reasons above, or was the institution chosen for
being the best match for their interest in the doctoral program?
Regarding the relationship with their academic advisor, participants expressed a
preference for academic advisors who speak their language, who were interested in Latin
American issues, and who were sensitive to other cultures. There may be a greater possibility of
finding a faculty member who speaks Spanish and is used to interacting with Mexican students
in American institutions in the south and west region with a larger Hispanic population than
institutions in the northeast and midwest region. These findings validate the importance of
examining international students’’ experiences by specific country, in this case Mexico, when
considering the acculturation of international students.
3. There were gender differences in the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the
United States. Although the questions in the online survey were not designed to only detect
gender differences, but to examine the overall acculturation experience of Mexican doctoral
students, results in this study reveal gender differences in two of the most relevant outcomes in
the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States. T-test results showed
significant differences on academic satisfaction (p= .003) and attitudes (p=.000) by gender.
Mexican female doctoral students had a lower score than Mexican male doctoral students on
their academic satisfaction in American institutions. This finding is consistent with Perrucci and
Ho (1995) and their previous study where males were more likely to be satisfied with their
academic program. Along the same lines, other studies found female international students to
have higher difficulties than males adjusting to the new cultural and academic environment in the
host country (Manese, Sedlacek, and Leong, 1988; Fletcher and Stren, 1989).

97

Regarding attitudes, Mexican female doctoral students showed lower scores in their selfconfidence to overcome obstacles and finish their program than male doctoral students in the
United States. There may be several reasons for the gender differences in self-confidence for
Mexican doctoral students in the United States. First, the level of educational attainment in
Mexico is higher for males than females and this may affect their confidence. For example, it
was shown previously that there was an underrepresentation of female doctoral students in the
United States. Second, power and authority in a machismo society such as Mexico comes usually
from male figures and women are used to obeying and not giving an opinion. Growing up in this
context may cause a lack of confidence in themselves and in other women. Third, although
society has progressed in policies to create gender equality, the reality is that equality between
male and women still does not exist.
4. There were other unique predictors in the design of this study such as type of
institutions, familiar educational background and academic discipline to determine the
acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States.
Type of institution
Different from other studies, participants in this research were not just from one
institution, but 98 different institutions of higher education across the United States. For the
purpose of the analysis of this study, the institutions were classified as public and private. 168
participants were pursuing doctoral degrees in public institutions representing 71.5% of the total
population. Further, 67 participants were in private institutions that represented 28.5% of the
total population. Results from a t-test analysis showed that there were significant differences in
the type of institution and the outcome of integration (p=.000) and strategies (p=.023). Mean
differences showed lower scores for integration for students in private institutions. In addition,
98

Mexican doctoral students from private institutions showed lower mean scores identifying
differences between values from their home country and the American culture. The findings in
this study can add to the research regarding international students in the United States looking at
differences among the destinations based on public and private American institutions.
Father’s level of education
College was the father’s highest level of education for 39.6% of the participants of this
study, while 17.9% had a master’s degree and 13.2% had a Ph.D. Overall, 70.7% of participants
reported their father had at least a bachelor’s degree. That is a large percentage that does not
reflect the reality of Mexican society, where the average educational attainment is 8.6 years
(INEGI, 2012). In addition, an analysis of variance was done for the variable of father’s level of
education. The results showed that there was a significant difference between father’s level of
education and the outcome of integration (p = .017). Further research should be done to
determine how father’s level of education impacts how the student values having contact with
the American culture.
Mother’s level of education
College was also the mothers’ highest level of education for 31.9% of the participants of
the study, while 14.5% of participants’ mothers’ had a master’s degree. Technical school was the
third highest level of education with 14.0%. In contrast to the father’s level of education, only
9.4 % report mothers with Ph.D. degrees. More fathers of CONACYT doctoral scholarship
recipients had attained Ph.D.s than had their mothers. The participants’ educational background
distribution relates to the gender roles expectations in Mexico. According to the National
Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions in Mexico ANUIES, 3,033
99

Mexicans received a doctoral degree in 2011. Of these students, 1,682 were males and 1,351
were females (ANUIES, 2011).
Academic discipline
For this study, the variable of academic discipline was selected as one of the predictors
for Mexican doctoral students’ acculturation. The variable was categorized based on the Biglan’s
classification (1973). Biglan (1973) classified academic disciplines in three dimensions. The
hard/soft dimension, the applied/pure dimension and the life/nonlife dimension. For this
investigation I condensed to four: Hard-pure, Soft-pure, Hard-applied, and Soft-applied. 218
participants answered the question about academic discipline on the online survey. 74
participants were in Hard-pure academic disciplines. 53 Mexican doctoral students were in Softpure academic disciplines. 63 Mexican doctoral students were pursuing doctoral programs in
Hard-applied academic disciplines, while just 28 Mexican doctoral students where in Softapplied academic disciplines. A one-way ANOVA found no statistical differences between the
variable of academic discipline and the outcomes. I expected to find that academic discipline is a
relevant factor in the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students. However, academic discipline
was found to determine only the outcome of strategies in this research.
5. Berry’s model of acculturation weighted acculturation outcomes equally. However, the
findings suggest that this assumption may not be the case for this study. Based on Berry’s (1997)
model of acculturation, the model for this study included seven outcomes. The model for this
study equally weighted acculturation outcomes. This is consistent with previous research on
acculturation models delineating the key factors impacting on the acculturation process (Berry,
1997; Bourhis et al, 1997; Mendoza & Martinez, 1981; Rasmi, Sadfar & Lewis, 2009; Safdar,
Lay and Strethers, 2003; Ward, Bochner and Funham, 2001). It is possible that some outcomes
100

carry more weight with Mexican international students than others, and that this result may vary
by the nationality of the student. Given the equal weight for each outcome, further research
should be done regarding the differences on key factors that affect the acculturation of
international students. Following, I discuss findings on each of the outcomes.
Academic satisfaction
The data showed that academic satisfaction was highly relevant to Mexican doctoral
students. Overall, participants indicated satisfaction with their academic experience (M= 5.2340).
This finding is consistent with previous research about international students and academic
satisfaction (Trice & Yoo, 2007; Perrucci & Hu, 1995). Perruccii and Hu (1995) stated that
“students who express satisfaction with their academic experiences and their social life in the
community have probably succeeded in overcoming the stress associated with new demands of
being a student and sojourner” (p. 492).
Although participants agreed they had a generally positive academic experience, a t-test
analysis showed that females enjoyed lower in academic satisfaction than male participants. This
finding is consistent with the results of Perruci and Hu (1995), where male students were more
likely to be satisfied with their academic program than females. This result is an important
contribution to gender studies and to the research on the experiences of international students in
the United States. More research should be done to determine the nature of the differences of
academic satisfaction between female and male Mexican doctoral students.
In this study, academic satisfaction was predicted by type of institution and perceived
English proficiency. This finding echoes previous research about the relationship between
English proficiency and academic satisfaction. International students who achieved higher

101

English skills have been found to enjoy greater success in their academic program (Wang,
Martin & Martin, 2002; Trice, 2004; Cowne & Addison, 1996). Regarding type of institution,
most of the research on international students has used a single institution. Little research has
focused on the impact of type of institution and academic satisfaction of international students in
the United States. Contrary to this study, discrimination has been shown to determine academic
satisfaction (Perruci and Hu, 1995). However, that was not the case in the acculturation of
Mexican doctoral students in the United States. Moreover, I expected self-reported doctoral GPA
to be significantly related to academic satisfaction. Although the participant’s doctoral program
GPA was not a significant predictor of academic satisfaction, there may be an indication where
the increase in the participant’s doctoral GPA boosts the participant’s academic satisfaction.
From the results of this study, on the one hand, the average of the participant’s doctoral program
GPA was 3.715. About half of the participants had a GPA above 3.76. On the other hand, the
average for academic satisfaction was 5.2340 of 6.000. Maybe, if more participants had doctoral
GPA closer to 4.0, they would have reported higher academic satisfaction, with an average closer
to 6.0. The discrepancy between the results of this study and previous research regarding
predictors of academic satisfaction may be associated to the selection of the acculturation model
for this study.
Attitudes
Mostly, participants seemed to have the self-confidence to overcome obstacles and finish
their doctoral program (attitudes: M = 5.3248, SD = .8547). Attitudes were positively related to
three other outcomes: strategies, student’s relationship with academic advisor and student’s
relationship with other professors. Gender and perceived English proficiency were significant
predictors of attitudes. This finding is consistent to previous research. “Female international
102

students place a greater emphasis on their academic concerns (and) question their self-efficacy
(more)… than do men” (Lee, Abd-ella, & Burks, 1981’ Manese, et al., 1988, as cited in
Andrews, Herman & Osit, 1999). Therefore, gender has been linked to self-confidence in
previous studies. Again, perceived English proficiency played an important role in the
acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States. Perceived English proficiency
was found to be a predictor for the outcome of attitudes (self-confidence). This finding is not
entirely surprising and is consistent with literature regarding English proficiency and selfconfidence. Andrews, Herman, & Osit, (1999) found that English skills were positively related to
self-confidence to participate in classrooms and interact with faculty members. Further, Barratt
and Huba (1994) and Trice (2004) linked English proficiency with the ability to build social
relationship with American students.
Integration
Integration referred to the extent to which participants value the contact to the American
culture. This outcome was particularly important since it is the ultimate measure of acculturation
according to Berry (1997). I expected that participants who were totally integrated were going to
reach the optimum stage of acculturation. In this study, participants generally agreed regarding
the value they placed on having contact with the American culture (integration: M = 5.0214, SD
= 1.05816). This result is not too low, but I expected this finding to be higher given the
particular population for this study and the closer proximity of Mexico to the United States.
There is a big influence of the American culture around the world but particularly in Mexico, the
United States has an economic impact through jobs in Mexico and the relationship between
dollars and pesos (the Mexican currency). Moreover, the cultural impact through music, sports,
and entertainment is substantial. Thus, it is possible that participants may have been in the
103

United States before (vacation, work, business or shopping), that they may have had contacts
with other Americans before, or that they may have worked for an American company before.
Integration was significantly correlated with the outcomes of strategies and the student’s
relationship with American students. Both of the outcomes are related to valuing the American
culture in some way, so this relationship was expected. Regression analysis in this study
demonstrated that type of institution (β = -.179, p= .014) and discrimination (β = -.223, p=.003)
significantly predicted integration when all eleven variables were included. This finding is
consistent with previous research. Trice (2004) stated that international students who perceive
little discrimination have more interaction with American students. Further, the author mentions
that discrimination as well as language and cultural barriers are not “easily removed” (p. 685).
Strategies
Strategies referred to the ability for participants to distinguish between Mexican values
and American values. Overall, participants agreed to identify differences between the values of
their country and the values of the American culture (strategies: M = 5.6009, SD = .62243).
Pearson correlation analysis showed strategies were not significantly correlated with any other
outcome. Academic discipline, father’s level of education and social support combined to
predict strategies. Self-reported doctoral program GPA was found to be a near significant
predictor for strategies as well. Further research should be done to determine how academic
discipline, father’s level of education and social support impact the outcome of strategies.
Student’s relationship with academic advisor
Participants in this study generally agreed they had a positive relationship with their
academic advisor (relationship with academic advisor: M = 3.4698, SD = .65064). Literature
104

shows that relationship with the academic advisor is important for the student’s success (Charles
& Steward, 1991; Trice & Yoo, 2007). Surprisingly, in the regression analysis none of the
predictors was significantly indicative of the student’s relationship with his/her academic
advisor. A possible explanation for these results may be the differences between previous
research and this study. The advising relationship has been seen in the literature as a predictor for
the adjustment and success of graduate students. Rice et al (2009) state that “the quality of the
advising relationship is a key predictor of adjustment and success of graduate students (p.376).
In contrast, based on Berry’s model (1997), this study considered the student’s relationship with
the academic advisor as an outcome of acculturation. Thus, that may be the reason why the
student’s relationship with their academic advisor had no significant predictors.
Student’s relationship with other professors
By and large, participants agreed that they had a positive relationship with other
professors in their doctoral program (relationship with other professors: M = 3.1983, SD =
.60617). None of the other outcomes was significantly correlated with this one. Self-reported
doctoral program GPA significantly predicted student’s relationship with professors when all
eleven variables were included.
Student’s relationship with American students
It was clear that participants in this study had mixed feelings regarding their relationship
with American students (relationship with American students: M = 2.0862, SD = 1.51225). This
finding is somewhat consistent with literature regarding international students’ interaction with
American students. In her study, Trice (2007) found that “Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Latin
America had an average level of contact (compared to other international students who showed

105

higher level of contact) with American students and were moderately concerned about these
interactions” (p. 681). This result shows that it is important to look at the interaction of
international students with American students as well as the level of concern international
students have regarding their interaction with American students. Furthermore, discrimination
often dictated students’ relationship with American students. Previous research has shown that
higher levels of perceived discrimination can affect student’s acculturation as well as their
relationship with the host community (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). Gender and social support were
other significant predictors for this outcome as well. How gender and social support predict
student’s relationship with American students warrants further investigation.
Summary of the findings
This study found that Mexican doctoral students faced similar challenges than other
international students such as perceived English proficiency, discrimination and social support.
Further, some of the findings in this study were related to the sample demographics. The sample
showed an underrepresentation of female Mexican doctoral students in the United States. The
preferred destinations for Mexican doctoral students were American institutions in the states
closest to the border with Mexico. Surprisingly, participants had additional sources of funding
besides their CONACYT scholarship, which suggests the struggles sponsored students have
financially. I also observed that participants appreciated academic advisors with similar interests
regarding Latin American issues and sensitivity to issues of culture and diversity. Another key
finding in this study was related to gender differences. Mexican female doctoral students showed
lower academic satisfaction and self-confidence than Mexican male doctoral students.
Moreover, I found that there was not a single variable that predicted the acculturation of
Mexican doctoral students in the United States across the various outcome measures of
106

acculturation. Predictors were considered from a p-value of .05 or lower. In addition, other
significant predictors were those with a p-value between .05 and 1. Academic satisfaction was
determined by perceived English proficiency and type of institutions. Gender and perceived
English proficiency predicted the outcome of attitudes. This would suggest that the level of
perceived English is a relevant factor of acculturation for Mexican doctoral students. Integration
was determined by type of institution and discrimination. Further, the outcome of strategies was
determined by academic discipline, father’s level of education and the variable of social support.
The outcome of a student’s relationship with their American counterparts was largely determined
by discrimination. Finally, self-reported doctoral GPA predicted student’s relationship with other
professors besides their academic advisor. Interestingly, gender only was shown only to predict
two outcomes in this. Furthermore, there were other significant predictors detected in the study
with p-vale between .05 and 1. Age was a significant predictor for the outcome of integration.
Self-reported doctoral GPA was a predictor for the outcome of strategies. Gender and social
support were significant predictors for the student’s relationship with American students. Lastly,
social support was a significant predictor for the student’s relationship with academic advisor.
Since this investigation was an exploratory research, the significant predictors with p-value
between .05 and 1can give more information about some potentially relevant factors that affect
the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States.
In sum, the findings above show that the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in
the United States is shaped by their perceived English proficiency, gender, discrimination and
type of institution. Contrary to what I expected, perceived English proficiency seems to be one of
the most relevant factors for the outcomes in the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in
the United States. I expected other predictors to have more impact in the acculturation of
107

Mexican doctoral students such as gender, academic discipline, social class and destination.
However, it makes sense the importance of perceived English proficiency in the acculturation of
Mexican doctoral students in the United States. Perceived English skills can facilitate interaction
with American students and decrease perceived discrimination. Further, the level of perceived
English proficiency can facilitate participation in programs in place to support international
doctoral students and can facilitate the utilization of other resources that help cultural adjustment
of international doctoral students. Lastly, perceived proficiency can help students to integrate not
only in the university, but the local community and to deal with day to day problems.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, the sample was not randomly selected.
Participants in this study represent Mexican doctoral students in the United States who were
sponsored by the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology in the fall semester of
2012. Mexican sponsored students from CONACYT represent a part of a particular population of
international sponsored students that is worth considering. This research explored the experience
of this understudied population. This study may or may not reflect the acculturation experience
of other international doctoral students in the United States or other Mexican doctoral students
in other countries.
Second, the instrument used self-reported information, which may introduce some bias
in the answers. Since the students were CONACYT sponsored students, respondents expressed
concern that their individual replies could be reported to CONACYT and that this may have
repercussions on them or their scholarship. I assured them that the information was confidential
and that this study was not in any way affiliated with or supported by CONACYT.

108

Third, the data was collected through an online survey. The instrument was selected due
to the low cost, the easy of administering the survey efficiently to a variety of students that are
scattered throughout the United States and the belief that participants would have access to
internet because they were doctoral students. Also, the internet survey may be a way to answer
the survey in a private manner in an environment in which most graduate students feel
comfortable. Perhaps some potential participants would have preferred a different kind of
instrument and decided not to answer an online survey. Further, answers from the respondents
for this study may be different from those students who decided not to answer the survey.
Implications for this study
Implications for practice
I expect that the findings in this study could help faculty and administrators in American
institutions that interact with Mexican doctoral students to develop an awareness of the
challenges for this particular population. Given that positive relationship with their academic
advisor contributes to the student’s success and acculturation, I expect faculty members to
understand the challenges and experiences of Mexican doctoral students and create opportunities
for interaction with other students to encourage them to succeed and finish their doctoral
program. American institutions and the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology,
CONACYT, should actively engage in the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students through
the creation of programs that help students improve their English skills. They should also
encourage the development of, and student participation in, programs that support international
students and foster interaction with faculty members and American students.

109

Implications for policy
Given that the many contributions of international students positively impact U.S. higher
education not only academically, but economically, socially and culturally, policies aiming to
help and support international students should be a priority in the American institutions’ agenda.
This study can inform policy in several ways. The data suggests that perceived English
proficiency was a significant factor that predicted the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students
in the United States. American institutions could intentionally create policies and invest
resources to help strengthen the English skills of international students. American institutions
could establish English as a Second Language programs and summer programs for Mexican
doctoral students and their families. Further, not only could they establish the programs, but also,
faculty members and administrators could encourage international doctoral students to
participate. In addition, the perceived English proficiency may also warrant a more careful policy
by the CONACYT program and American institutions in their selection process.
Further, American institutions could create policies to improve communications with and
further their relationship with the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology.
American institutions could have a particular staff member who is assigned the specific duties of
being the liaison with the CONACYT and collaborate in the creation of more agreements to
increase the participation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States, as well as to monitor
the experience of the current Mexican students who are already studying in the U.S. American
institutions should establish policies to create awareness of the challenges that this understudied
population of sponsored international students face. Also, how the context of international
students from Mexico impacts their academic experiences and achievements needs to be
examined.
110

The National Council of Science and Technology, CONACYT, could create policies to
support Mexican doctoral students while they are pursuing their program. Specially, CONACYT
should establish programs to increase the participation of Mexican female in doctoral programs
in the United States. In addition, there should be strategies to increase Mexican female selfconfidence to overcome the obstacles and finish their doctoral program and improve their
academic satisfaction. Finally, there is an implication for CONACYT to create policies to
increase the interaction among the Mexican doctoral students in the United States and build a
support network.
Future research
The findings in this study suggest areas for future investigation. This study could be
extended by comparing the acculturation of Mexican doctoral students in the United States and
other countries with similar characteristics of the American culture. Another possible further
study could be regarding the construct of acculturation built based on Berry’s model of
acculturation (1997). A future study could explore the acculturation of Mexican doctoral
students through another theoretical framework utilizing a different model. Finally, a future
research could add predictors to the model such as marital status and parental status.
Given the gender roles in Mexico, this model could allow us to look at how the role of
gender and being married and being a parent predicts acculturation in Mexican doctoral students
in the United States. Although not included in the original study, a preliminary analysis suggests
that these may be significant factors.

111

Recommendations
There are several recommendations based on the findings from this study. They are
divided in recommendations addressing the research questions for this study and
recommendations drawn from the literature.
Recommendations addressing the research questions
There could be new ways to measure English proficiency in future research regarding the
acculturation experience of international doctoral students in the United States. The findings in
this study showed conflict in how students perceived their English proficiency and the outcomes.
Therefore, future research should look at different ways to measure English proficiency other
than the student’s self-perception.
There could be new models to look at factors that affect the acculturation of Mexican
doctoral students in the United States that does not see the outcomes equally. Traditional
acculturation models equally weight the different outcomes; however, a model that addresses the
importance of each outcome could be a more effective way to look at the factors that affect the
acculturation of international doctoral students. It is clear that acculturation is an important
element for the student’s success.
American institutions and the US government might improve and maintain their efforts in
attracting talented Mexican international students to academic programs in this country.
Although the US is the leading country for hosting international students, institutions and the US
government could increase the recruitment of talented internationals students by providing
scholarships, especially to qualified low-income international students. Institutions’ admissions
policies could ensure the enrollment of a diverse student body, including international doctoral
students from Mexico.

112

The CONACYT program might revisit parts of the scholarship program to address issues
regarding sufficient funding, gender differences and diversification of applicants. CONACYT is
a key organization and the most important effort of the Mexican government to support Mexican
students to study doctoral programs abroad. It benefits not only the Mexican students, but also
aids the Mexican society in the development of human capital. However, there are several
important points to address regarding their scholarship program. First, the CONACYT program
could revise the level of funding for Mexican students abroad, considering such factors as
inflation and cost of living of the city where the student is pursuing his/her doctoral degree.
Specifically, Mexican doctoral students in the United States find the level of funding is
insufficient to make ends meet. Second, the CONACYT program could look at the differences in
gender and engage in outreach to increase female participation in doctoral programs and provide
support need to increase women’s self-confidence and academic satisfaction. Third, CONACYT
could look at the parents’ educational background of their scholarship recipients and diversify
their strategies to recruit members of less privileged backgrounds by creating a more accessible
application process and by promoting the CONACYT scholarship program throughout Mexico.
Recommendations drawn from the literature review
American institutions might take a close look at the experience of sponsored international
students from developing countries. American institutions could address the challenges of this
understudied population and create the support needed for them to succeed regarding diversity
training for faculty members, American students and administrators, language classes,
counseling, and other services that are designed to foster an environment that respects global
diversity. In addition, based on the findings, sponsored students still struggle financially; thus,
American institutions can make an effort to offer additional scholarships and/or assistantships.

113

American institution might evaluate the effectiveness of programs, offices and services
for international doctoral students. Institutions could implement a survey system to evaluate the
experience of international doctoral students in the U.S. and the use of university resources. In
addition, institutions could create policies related to training staff that work with international
doctoral students, so they have an understanding of the students’ differences. For example, there
should be trained facilitators at the writing center with specific expertise in working with English
as a second language students. Staff in the Office of International Studies should be trained in
methods of working with specific populations.
American institutions could collect data and track international students after they finish
their academic program. Institutions might implement a system to follow up on its graduates and
have information available about completion rates divided by international students, especially in
graduate school. This information would be helpful to know what students stay in the United
States and what students go back to their home country.
The U.S. government might implement a national policy to attract Mexican international
students to this country. The U.S. government might work with the Mexican government and
especially CONACYT to give this issue high priority. The U.S. government could work towards
the goal of making the visa process easier. Also, the government might invest in cultural
exchanges programs such as Fulbright and language training such as Foreign Language and Area
Studies Program FLAS to promote the mobility of students and the good will among nations.
Such programs have helped advance research and teaching around the world.
American institutions and the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology,
CONACYT, might actively engage in advocating for Mexican international students. Institutions
might be informed of the current trends of immigration policies that affect international students.

114

Further, American institutions and the CONACYT program could utilize their resources to
support, advocate and represent Mexican international students to make their stay comfortable
and productive and contribute to the successful student’s graduation.
American institutions and the CONACYT program could support and guide this energetic
community of scholars. While reading through the answers and comments on the online survey, I
had the feeling that participants were eager to help and to interact with other Mexican doctoral
students in the United States. There is a lack of programs to support and guide this understudied
population. A single facebook group of CONACYT sponsored students is not enough. There
could be policies in place not only from the CONACYT program, but also from American
institutions to create a support group for Mexican doctoral students in the United States. In this
group, students could share experiences, post questions regarding scholarship procedures, have a
classification of publications by Mexican doctoral students, job opportunities, additional funding
opportunities, conference opportunities, and information about where previous Mexican
sponsored students became employed after finishing their program. Not only would the students
benefit, but also, the CONACYT program, American institutions, Mexico and post-secondary
institutions around the world.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that affected the acculturation of
Mexican doctoral students in the United States in order to draw attention to the challenges that
face this under-researched population. The findings of this study add to existing research
regarding the acculturation of international students looking at the participants’ characteristics
through the lens of their country of origin (in this case, Mexico).

115

Among the findings in this research, I found similarities in the acculturation experience
of international students and Mexican doctoral students. However, the findings also showed that
there were experiences better examined through the student’s nationality rather than a single
group that included all international students. The findings from this study are meaningful for
Mexican doctoral students in the United States, The CONACYT program, The Mexican
government, The U.S. government, American institutions and post-secondary institutions around
the world. On the one hand, Mexican doctoral students can gain an insight about the challenges
their colleagues have. The findings of this study can also increase the sense of belonging of
Mexican doctoral students to a group that could enable them to share their experiences, network
and enrich their participation as a CONACYT sponsored student and as a Mexican doctoral
student in the United States. The CONACYT program, the Mexican government, the U.S.
government, American institutions and other higher education institutions around the world can
learn from the findings how they can better support this understudied population to help them
succeed in their doctoral programs. There should be a shared responsibility not only to the
doctoral students, but to the CONACYT program and American institutions to create the best
environment for students to succeed.

116

APPENDICES

117

APPENDIX A
INITIAL EMAIL TO PARTICIPANTS
In English
Dear doctoral students:
My name is Gloria Gabriela Tanner from Michigan State University. I am doing my dissertation
study. Like you, I am a Mexican doctoral student in the United States. This study is entitled The
Graduate Experience of Mexican International Students in U.S. doctoral programs. Your
participation will contribute in our knowledge to understand and better assist doctoral Mexican
students in American institutions.
Below, you can find the link for the survey:
https://www.survey.monkey.com

This link is related only to the survey and your e-mail. Please do not resend this message.
The survey is designed to be answered in about 15 to 20 minutes. Your participation is voluntary.
There is not a right and wrong answer. You may choose to answer all or some questions and you
may end this survey at any time. The data will be kept confidential. After completing the survey,
you will enter a lottery to win a certificate for $50 dlls from amazon.com.
If you have any question, you can contact me at tannerg@msu.edu.
Thank you for participating.
Gloria Gabriela Tanner

In Spanish
Estimado estudiante de doctorado:
Mi nombre es Gloria Gabriela Tanner de la Universidad del Estado de Michigan y estoy llevando
a cabo un estudio de investigación como parte de mi tesis. Como tu, soy estudiante Mexicano de
doctorado en los Estados Unidos. Mi tesis se titula “La Experiencia de Estudiantes Mexicanos en
Programas de Doctorado en los Estados Unidos”. Su participación contribuirá al conocimiento
para entender y asistir mejor a estudiantes Mexicanos de doctorado en los Estados Unidos.
Aqui puede encontrar el vínculo para el cuestionario:
https://www.surveymonkey.com
118

Este vinculo esta ligado únicamente con este cuestionario y su correo electrónico. Por favor no
reenvie este mensaje.
El cuestionario es diseñado para ser contestado en aproximadamente de 15 a 20 minutos. Su
participación es voluntaria. Las preguntas son de opinión propia y no hay respuestas correctas o
incorrectas. Todas las respuestas serán confidenciales. Al contestar este cuestionario, usted
entrara a una rifa de un certificado por $50 dólares del sitio amazon.com. Para cualquier
pregunta puede contactarme al correo electrónico tannerg@msu.edu.
Gracias por su participación.
Gloria Gabriela Tanner
Por favor note: Si no desea recibir mas correos en el futuro, seleccione el siguiente vinculo:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx?sm=OlRGvEXIKCEl6gPkwooWhg_3d_3d

119

APPENDIX B
The Survey

In English
STUDENT DATA QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE INFORMATION
________________________________________________________________________
Directions: The following questions are related to acculturation experiences of international
students. Please read each of the sentences below. On a scale of 1 to 6 please mark your level of
agreement with the following statements related to your experience in the U.S.
________________________________________________________________________
Strongly
Disagree
1

Disagree
2

Slightly
disagree
3

Slightly
agree
4

Agree
5

1
1. I value having contact with US culture during my stay
in the United States
2. I value to having contact with my own culture during
my stay in the United States
3. I am satisfied with my academic experience in this
university
4. My academic experience has had a positive influence
on my intellectual growth
5. I feel good about my performance in my academic
program and courses
6. I feel comfortable reaching out to professors and my
academic advisor when I have questions
7. I feel confident I am able to overcome barriers to
finish my program successfully
8. I have developed close relationships with other
Americans students since coming to this university
9. I am able to identify differences between values of my
home country and American culture values
10. I have been able to manage feeling lonely or
homesick
11. I am motivated to learn new knowledge and skills
12. I have become used to American customs
13. I feel that I am often misunderstood due to my
120

Strongly
Agree
6

2

3

4

5

6

different beliefs and values
14. I feel I have enough guidance to complete my
doctoral program.
15. I participate in community activities on campus and
the local community
16. I feel my experience studying in the U.S. has given
me a better perspective of the world
17. I worry about the location where I will have my
future career.
18. I worry about my financial situation
19. I feel confident expressing my ideas in English in
the classroom
20. I feel other students treat me differently because of
my race or national origin
21. I communicate with my family and friends back
home
22. I meet with my advisor at least once per semester to
discuss my progress in my program
23. I have had a hard time adjusting to the weather
24. I feel professors treat me differently because of my
race or national origin
25. I have contact with the international student center
on campus
26. My advisor is available when I need him/her
27. I feel I am able to express my ideas well in written
English
28. I spend my free time with other American students
29. I spend my free time with other international
students from my own country
30. I spend my free time with international students
from other countries
Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Directions: Please take a few minutes to select the box (es) in front of the responses that are
most adequate or by typing in a response in the space provided.
________________________________________________________________________

31. Estimate the number of students from your country in your program: __

121

32. My relationship with my academic advisor is:
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

33. My relationship with the faculty in my department is:
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

34. My relationship with the graduate students in my program is:
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

35. How would you rate your overall experience as a doctoral student in your institution?
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

36. What has changed about you, if anything, since enrolling in your graduate program?
37. What has been your most rewarding or satisfying experience as a doctoral student in your
institution?
38. What has been your least rewarding or satisfying experience as a doctoral student in your
institution?
39. What would you change to improve your doctoral experience?
40. What are the three most important things that someone from your country should know
before coming to the U.S. to study?
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Directions: Please take a few minutes to select the box (es) in front of the responses that are
most adequate or by typing in a response in the space provided.
________________________________________________________________________
PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. In what university are you currently enrolled? ______________________________
2. Discipline of study: ___________________ ________________________________
3. Gender

□ Female

4. Hometown: ________________

□ Male

Country: ____________

□ Other: _________
State: ____________

5. Age: _______
6. Years of residency in the U.S. _________
7. Academic

□ First year

□ Second year

□ Third year

year in your

□ Fourth year

□ Fifth year

□ Sixth year

program:

□ Seventh year

□ Other:____

122

8. Previous experience studying in an English speaking country

□ Yes

□ No

a. If yes, in what country did you study?: _______________________________
b. What degree did you earn?: ________________________________________
9. Academic performance in Bachelor’s degree:
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

10. Academic performance in Master’s degree:
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

11. Academic performance in doctoral program:
□ Poor

□ Fair

□ Good

□ Excellent

12. Current GPA in your doctoral program: _______
13. Date (month and year) of expected program completion: ______________________
14. Desired position after finishing the program:
□ Faculty

□Academia

□ Government

□ Business

□ Private sector

□ Self employment

□ Administrator. Where: _______

□ Other: ________

15. Marital

□ Single

□ Married

□ Divorced

status:

□ Widowed

□ Partnered

16. Location of your □ Same location
spouse or partner:

□ Mexico

□ Elsewhere in the US

□ Other, specify __________

17. If you are a parent, number of children: _____________
c. Age (s) of your children: _____________________
18. Source of funding for your studies (all that apply):
□ Graduate Teaching
□ Family Funds

□ Research Assistantship

□ Scholarship

□ Other: __________

FAMILY INFORMATION
19. Mother’s highest educational attainment level:
□ Elementary school diploma
school diploma/ GED

□ Middle school diploma
□ Technical school diploma

□ Bachelor’s degree

□ Masters degree (EdM/AM/MS)

□ Doctorate (EdD / PhD)

□ Professional degree (JD/MD/DDS)

20. Father’s highest educational attainment level:

123

□ High

□ Elementary school diploma
school diploma/ GED

□ Middle school diploma

□ High

□ Technical school diploma

□ Bachelor’s degree

□ Masters degree (EdM/AM/MS)

□ Doctorate (EdD / PhD)

□ Professional degree (JD/MD/DDS)

21. Number of siblings: ______

Thank you for taking the time to answer the survey. Please send an email to tannerg@msu.edu
to confirm you completion of the survey and to enter a raffle to win a $50 gift certificate from
amazon.com.

In Spanish
QUESTIONARIO
________________________________________________________________________
Direcciones: Las siguientes preguntas son relacionadas con la experiencia de aculturación de
estudiantes internacionales. Por favor, lea cada enunciado y seleccione la opción que mejor
describa su opinión en relación a su experiencia como estudiante internacional. Existen 6
opciones: 1-Totalmente en desacuerdo; 2- En desacuerdo; 3-Algo en desacuerdo; 4-Algo de
acuerdo; 5-De acuerdo y 6-Totalmente de acuerdo. Recuerde que las preguntas son de opinión
propia, hechas independientemente, y no hay respuestas correctas o incorrectas. Todas las
repuestas serán confidenciales.
________________________________________________________________________
Sumamente
en
Desacuerdo
1

Muy en
Desacuerdo

Algo en
Desacuerdo

Algo de
Acuerdo

Muy de
acuerdo

Sumamente
de Acuerdo

2

3

4

5

6

1
1. Yo valoro tener contacto con la cultura
Estadounidense durante mi estadía en los Estados
Unidos.
2. Yo valoro tener contacto con mi propia cultura
durante mi estadía en los Estados Unidos.
3. Estoy satisfecho con mi experiencia académica en
esta Universidad.
4. Mi experiencia académica ha tenido una influencia
positiva en mi desarrollo intelectual.
5. Me siento satisfecho con mi desempeño en los cursos
124

2

3

4

5

6

de mi programa académico.
6. Siento que tengo la confianza para contactar a mi
asesor(a) académico y a mis profesores cuanto tengo
preguntas.
7. Siento que tengo la confianza para superar los
obstáculos y terminar mi programa académico
exitosamente.
8. Yo he cultivado amistades cercanas con otros
estudiantes Estadounidenses desde que llegue a esta
Universidad.
9. Yo puedo identificar diferencias entre los valores de
mi país y los valores de la cultura Estadounidense.
10. Yo he podido controlar mis sentimientos de soledad
y nostalgia.
11. Yo estoy motivado para aprender nuevas habilidades
y obtener nuevos conocimientos.
12. Yo me he acostumbrado a las tradiciones
Estadounidenses.
13. Siento que a menudo soy malentendido debido a mis
diferentes valores y creencias.
14. Siento que tengo la suficiente tutela y dirección para
terminar mi programa de doctorado.
15. Yo participo frecuentemente en actividades
comunitarias en campus.
16. Siento que mi experiencia estudiando en los Estados
Unidos me ha dado una mejor perspectiva del mundo.
17. Me preocupo acerca del lugar (ciudad) donde voy a
desarrollar mi carrera al terminar mi programa de
doctorado.
18. Me preocupo por mi situación financiera.
19. Me siento con la confianza de expresar mis ideas en
Ingles en el salón de clases.
20. Siento que otros estudiantes me tratan diferente
debido a mi raza o a mi nacionalidad.
21. Me comunico frecuentemente con mi familia y
amigos de mi país.
22. Yo me reúno con mi asesor(a) académico por lo
menos una vez al semestre para platicar sobre mi
progreso en mi programa de doctorado.
23. Se me ha hecho difícil adaptarme al clima de aquí.
24. Siento que los profesores me tratan diferente debido
a mi raza o a mi nacionalidad.
25. Tengo contacto frecuente con el centro para
estudiantes internacionales en mi campus.
26. Mi asesor(a) académico esta disponible cuando
necesito de su ayuda.
125

27. Creo que mi nivel de Ingles es suficientemente
bueno para expresar ideas académicas por escrito.
28. Yo paso la mayoría de mi tiempo libre con otros
estudiantes Estadounidenses.
29. Yo paso la mayoría de mi tiempo libre con otros
estudiantes internacionales de mi propio país.
30. Yo paso la mayoría de mi tiempo libre con otros
estudiantes internacionales de otros países.
Comentarios:
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Direcciones: Por favor tome algunos minutos para seleccionar la opción que sea mas adecuada
para usted o para escribir la respuesta en el espacio siguiente.
________________________________________________________________________

31. Estime el número de estudiantes de su propio país en su programa de doctorado: ____
32. En general, mi relación con mi asesor(a) académico es:
□ Mala

□ Regular

□ Buena

□ Excelente

33. En general, mi relación con los profesores de mi departamento académico es:
□ Mala

□ Regular

□ Buena

□ Excelente

34. En general, mi relación con los estudiantes de mi programa académico es:
□ Mala

□ Regular

□ Buena

□ Excelente

35. En general, mi experiencia como estudiante de doctorado en mi institución es:
□ Mala

□ Regular

□ Buena

□ Excelente

36. ¿Qué ha cambiado acerca de usted desde que empezó el programa de doctorado en su
institución?
37. ¿Cuál ha sido la experiencia mas satisfactoria como estudiante de doctorado en su
institución?
38. ¿Cuál ha sido la experiencia menos satisfactoria como estudiante de doctorado en su
institución?
39. ¿Qué cambiaria usted para mejor su experiencia como estudiante de doctorado?
40. ¿Qué considera usted que son las tres cosas mas importantes que una persona de su país debe
saber antes de ir a los Estados Unidos a estudiar en un programa de posgrado?

126

INFORMACION DEMOGRAFICA
Direcciones: Por favor conteste las siguientes preguntas en el espacio disponible o seleccione la
respuesta que sea más adecuada para usted. Todas las respuestas serán confidenciales.
________________________________________________________________________
INFORMACION PERSONAL
1. ¿En que Universidad esta usted actualmente estudiando su posgrado? ____________
2. Principal disciplina de estudio: _______________
3. Genero:

□ Mujer

□ Hombre

□ Transgenero

4. Edad: _____________________
5. Tiempo de residencia en los Estados Unidos: ____Años y _______Meses.
6. Ciudad de Residencia antes de vivir en los Estados Unidos: ________________
7. Año Académico
actual de su programa

□ Primer año

□ Segundo año

□ Cuarto año

□ Quinto año

□ Septimo año

□ Otro:____

□ Tercer año
□ Sexto año

8. ¿Tiene usted experiencia previa estudiando en un país angloparlante? □ Si

□ No

a. Si su respuesta es si, ¿En que país estudio?: ____________________________
b. ¿Que grado recibió usted? ________________________________________
9. Desempeño académico en el grado de licenciatura:
□ Malo

□ Regular

□ Bueno

□ Excelente

10. Desempeño académico en el grado de maestría:
□ Malo

□ Regular

□ Bueno

□ Excelente

11. Desempeño académico en su programa de doctorado:
□ Malo

□ Regular

□ Bueno

□ Excelente

12. ¿Cual es su promedio académico general en su programa de doctorado?: __________
13. Fecha en la que espera terminar su programa de doctorado (mes y año): ___________
14. Cual es el puesto que desea incursionar al termino de su programa?:
□ Profesor

□Academia

□ Gobierno

□ Negocios

□ Propio negocio

□ Administrador.

15. Estado civil:

□ Soltero(a)

□ Casado(a)

□ Viudo(a)

□ En union libre

16. Ubicación de

□ Private sector

□ Otro: ________

□ Mismo lugar

□ Mexico
127

□ Divorciado(a)

□ Otra ciudad de E.U.

su esposo(a) o pareja:

□ Otro, especifique __________

17. Si es usted padre, ¿Cuántos hijos tiene?: _____________
a. ¿Cuáles son las edades de sus hijos? ____________________
18. Cual es la forma(as) en que apoya sus estudios (todas las que apliquen):
□ Beca

□ Asistencia de investigación de la universidad

□ Asistencia de enseñanza de la universidad

□ Fondos familiares

□ Otros, especifique: __________
INFORMACION FAMILIAR
19. Nivel más alto de educación de su madre:
□ Primaria

□ Secundaria

□ Escuela Técnica

□ Preparatoria

□ Licenciatura

□ Maestría

Doctorado

□ Otro, espeficique: _____________

□

20. Nivel más alto de educación de su padre:
□ Primaria

□ Secundaria

□ Escuela Técnica

□ Preparatoria

□ Licenciatura

□ Maestría

Doctorado

□ Otro, espeficique: _____________

□

21. Si usted tiene hermanos (as), ¿Alguno de ellos(as) obtuvo el grado de licenciatura?
□ Si

□ No

Gracias por tomar el tiempo para contestar este cuestionario. Favor de enviar un correo a
tannerg@msu.edu para confirmar el término de este cuestionario y entrar a una rifa de una tarjeta
de $50 dolares del sitio amazon.com.

128

APPENDIX C
DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS’ INSTITUTION
Table C.1
Frequency by institution
No. Institution
1 The University of Arizona
2 Arizona State University
3 University of California Los Angeles
4 Texas A & M University
5 Harvard University
6 Columbia University
7 University of California Irvine
8 University of Pittsburgh
9 University of California at Davis
10 University of California San Diego
11 University of California Santa Cruz
12 University of Wisconsin Madison
13 Cornell University
14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
15 Purdue University
16 The University of Chicago
17 University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
18 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U.
19 John Hopkins University
20 Colorado State University
21 Florida State University
22 New School University
23 Ohio State University
24 Stanford University
25 The State University of New York
26 The University of New Mexico
27 The University of Texas at Austin
28 University of California Santa Barbara
29 University of Florida
30 University of Miami
31 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
32 University of Washington
33 Washington State University
34 Case Western Reserve University
35 New Mexico State University
129

No. of Students
13
10
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2

Table C.1 (cont’d)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74

Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Pardee Rand Graduate School
Rice University
The George Washington University
The University of Texas at El Paso
University of California-Riverside
University of California-San Marcos
University of Nebraska –Lincoln
University of North Texas
University of Texas at Austin
Carnegie-Mellon University
American University
Baylor University
Boston University
City University of New York
Clemson University
Emory University
Florida Institute of Technology
George Mason University
Georgetown University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Illinois Institute of Technology
Iowa State University of Science and Technology
Kent State University
Michigan State University
Michigan Technological University
New York University
Northwestern University
Ohio University
Pennsylvania State University
Portland State University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
South Dakota State University
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
The University of North Caroline Charlotte
The University of Texas at Arlington
The University of Texas at Dallas
The University of Vermont
130

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Table C.1 (cont’d)
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

University of Akron
University of California Merced
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Georgia
University of Houston
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Minnesota
University of Notre Dame
University of Texas at Arlington
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at El Paso
University of Virginia
Vanderbilt University
Yale University
Total Participants

131

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
224

REFERENCES

132

REFERENCES
Abel, C. F. (2002). Academic success and the international student: Research and
recommendations. New Directions for Higher Education, 117, 13-20.
Anderson, E. M., and Shannon, A. L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring.
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1): 38--42.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations
and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4 (Fall/Winter 2007)), 290305.
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment
factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154. Retrieved December
7, 2007, from http://jri.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/5/2/131
Andrews, R. W., Herman, J., & Osit, J. L. (1999). Asian women and academic confidence.
Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel Association, 1999, 45-61.
ANUIES (2011). Anuario Estadistico de Postgrado. 2011.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Aupetit, S., & Gerard, E. (2009). Fuga de cerebros, movilidad academica, redes cientificas:
Perspectivas latinoamericanas. Mexico: IESALC-CINVESTAV-IRD.
Bain, S., Fedynich, L., & Knight, M. (2011). The successful graduate student: a review of the
factors for success. Journal of Academic Business and Ethics, 3 (January 2011), 1-9.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barratt, M. F. & Huba, M. E. (1994). Factors related to international graduate student adjustment
in an American community. College Student Journal, 39, 422–435.
Bell, M. J. (2012). Define Academic Performance. Retrieve March 30, 2012 from
http://www.ehow.com/about_4740750_define-academic-performance.html
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46(5-68).
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in academic areas, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 57, 195–203.
133

Bok, D. (2006). Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and
Why They Should be Learning More. , 434. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S. & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive
acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of
Psychology, 32, 369–386.
Brislin,R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, E. M., (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New
York: Wiley.
Bush, G.W. (2001). Statement for International Education Week 2001 (November 13).
Washington, D.C., http://www.exchange.state.gov/iew2001/message.htm.
Carnegie (2013). Carnegie Classification. Retrieved on July, 21, 2013 from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php.
Chapdelaine, R., & Alexitch, L. (2004). Social skills difficulty: model of culture shock for
international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 167-184.
Charles, H., Stewart, M. (1991). Academic advising of international students. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19 (4), 173-181.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.(2nd Ed). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia. CONACYT. (2010). Padron de becarios en el
extranjero 2010. Direccion adjunta de posgrado y becas.
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia. CONACYT. (2012). Breve Historia del CONACYT.
Retrieved on December 23rd, 2012 from http://20062012.conacyt.gob.mx/Acerca/Paginas/default.aspx
Constantine, M., Anderson, G., Berkel, L. V., Caldwell, L., & Utsey, S. (2005). Examining the
cultural adjustment experiences of African international college students: A qualitative
analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 57-66.
Cownie, F., & Addison, W. (1996). International students and language support: A new survey.
Studies in Higher Education, 21(2), 221-231.
Dao, T., Donghyuck, L. & Chang, H.L. (2007). Acculturation Level, Perceived English Fluency,
Perceived Social Support Level and Depression among Taiwanese International Students.
College Student Journal, 4(2), 287-295.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University
of Michigan Press.
134

Fletchen, J., F., & Stren, R., E. (1989). Language skills and adaptation: a study of foreign
students in a Canadian university. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 293-308.
Fricker, R.D. Jr., Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of internet research
surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14 (4), 347-367.
Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for
the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 369-387.
Girves, J., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree
progress. Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 163-189.
Gonzalez, V. (2004). Second Language Learning: Cultural Adaptation Processes in
International Graduate Students in U.S. Universities. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of
America.
Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. South-Western Journal
of Anthropology, 23, 337-350.
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(4), 305-322. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from
http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/6/4/305.
Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2004). The impact of parents’ education level on college students: An analysis
using the beginning postsecondary students’ longitudinal study 1990-92/94. Journal of
College Student Development, 45 (5), 483-500.
Harrison, J.K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural
adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations. 20, 167-188.
Hartnett, R., & Katz, J. (1977). The education of graduate students. The Journal of Higher
Education. 48, 6, 646-664.
Hartnett, N., Romcke, J., & Yap, C., (2004). Student performance in tertiary-level accounting: an
international student focus. Accounting and Finance. 44, 163-185.
Hernandez Castaneda, R. (2008). The graduate experience: Living and studying abroad (a case
study). Revista Electronica de Investigacion Educativa, 10(2). Retrieved 05,10/2010 from
Herzig, A. (2004). Becoming mathematicians: Women and students of color choosing and
leaving doctoral Mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 74 (2), 171214.
Hsieh, Min-Hua. (2007). Challenges for international students in higher education: One student.
College Student Journal. 41(2), 379-391.
135

Institute of International Education. (2000). Open Doors Report, 2000.
Institute of International Education. (2008). Open Doors Report, 2008.
Institute of International Education (2009). Open Doors Report, 2009.
Institute of International Education (2011). Open Doors Report, 2011.
Institute of International Education. (2012). Open doors fact sheet: Mexico. (2012) Retrieved
July 1st, 2013 from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/FactSheets-by-Country/2012.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia INEGI (2012). Informacion Nacional. Retrieved on
July 21, 2013 from http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/mexicocifras/default.aspx.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia INEGI. (2013). Rezago educativo. Retrevied on
August, 5th 2013 from http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/mexicocifras/default.aspx#E.
Jacks, P., Chubin, D.E., Porter, A.L., & Connolly, T. (1983). The ABCs of ABDs: A study of
incomplete doctorates. Improving College and University Teaching, 31(2), 74-81.
Johnson, J. M. (2002). The reverse brain drain and the global diffusion of knowledge.
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, summer/fall 2002, 125-131
Kagan, H., Cohen, J. (1990). Cultural adjustment of international students. Psychological
Sciences. 1(2), 133-137.
Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of Higher Education. In Organisation for Economic Co.operation and Development (Ed.), Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education (pp.
13-23). Danvers, MA: Institutional Management in Higher Education.
Ladd, P. D., & Ruby, R., Jr. (1999). Learning style and adjustment issues of international
students. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 363-367.
Lee , M., Abd-Ella, M. and Burks, L. (1981). Needs of Foreign Students from Developing
Nations at U. S. Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: National Association for
Foreign Student Affairs.
Leveille, D. E. (2006). Accountability in Higher Education: A Public Agenda for Trust and
Cultural Change. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

136

Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. (2009). Determinants of International Students’ Academic
Performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international students. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 14 (4), 389-405
Light, R. L., Xu, M., & Mossop, J. (1987). English proficiency and academic performance of
international students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 251-261.
Lin, G. & Yi, J.K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program
suggestions. College Student Journal, 31, 473-479.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure
from doctoral study. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Magana et al. (1996). Revisiting the dimensions of acculturation: Cultural theory and
psychometric practice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 444-468.
Manese, J., E., Sedlacek, W., & Leon, F., T. (1988). Needs and perceptions of female and male
international undergraduate students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
16, 24-29.
McKenzie, K., & Grow, K. (2004). Exploring first-year academic achievement through structural
equation modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 107-123.
Mendoza,R .H., & Martinez, J. L. (1981).The measurements f acculturation. In A. Baron Jr.
(Ed.), Explorations in Chicano psychology (pp. 71-82). New York: Praeger.
Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C.J., (2003). Relationship among life stress, social support,
academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in the United States.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10 (2), 137-157.
Mori, S. (2000) Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 78, 137–144.
Morris, R.T. (1960). The two way mirror: National status of foreign students’ adjustment.
Minnesota, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mullen, A., Goyette, K., and Soares, J. (2003). Who goes to graduate school? Social and
academic correlates of educational continuation after college. Sociology of Education, 76 (2),
143-169.
NASULGC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (2007,
October). A National Action Agenda for Internationalizing Higher Education. Washington,
D.C.: NASULGC.
Nerad, M. & Cerny, J. (1993). From facts to actions: Expanding the educational role of the
graduate division. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80, 27-40.
137

Nilsson, J., E., & Doods, A., K., (2006). A pilot phase in the development of the international
student supervision scale. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 34(1), 5063.
Nulty, D.D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates of online and paper surveys: What can be
done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314.
Olivas, M. & Li, 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.
Oppedal, B. (2006). Development and acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook on acculturation psychology (pp. 97-112). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Padilla, A., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new
perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 35-55.
Paglis, L., Green, S., & Bauer, T. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal
study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47 (4),
451-476.
Perrucci, R., & Hu, H, (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experience among
international graduate students. Research in Higher Education 36 (4), 491-508.
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,88, 67-76.
Pontius, J. & Harper, S., (2006). Principles for good practice in graduate and profesional student
engagement. New Directions for Student Services. 115, Fall 2006, 47-58.
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M., E. (2003). The impact of lottery incentives on student survey
response rates. Research in Higher Education, 44 (4), 389-406.
Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Nora, A., McPherson, R., & Pisecco, S. (2002). Relation between
assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and psychosocial adjustment among international
graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 632-642.
Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P., R., Baker, A., & Al-Timini, N. (2004). Social support and
demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of College
Counseling, 7, 73-82.

138

Poyrazli, S., Lopez, M., D. (2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and
homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 141 (3), 263-280.
Poyrazli, S. & Grahame, K.M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international students
within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(1), 28-45.
Rasmi, S., Safdar, S. & Lewis, J. R. (2009). A longitudinal examination of the MIDA model with
international students. In A. Chybicka, S. Safdar, & A. Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Culture and
gender an intimate relations. Gdansk, Poland: Gdanskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation.
American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
Rice, G. R., Choi, C., Zhang, Y., Villegas, J., Ye, H. J., Anderson, D., Nesic, A., & Bigler, M.
(2009). International student perspectives on graduate advising relationships. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56 (3), 376-391.
Safdar, S., Lay, C. & Struthers, W. (2003). The process of acculturation and basic goals: Testing
a multidimensional individual difference acculturation model with Iranian immigrants in
Canada. Applied Psychology, 52, 555–579.
Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., Shearin, E.N., & Pierce, G., R. (1987). A brief measurement of
social support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personality
Relationships. 4, 497-510
Senyshyn, R.M., Warford, M.K. & Zhan, J. (2000). Issues of adjustment to higher education:
International students’ perspectives. International Education, 30(1), 17-35.
Shih, S., F., & Brown, C. (2000). Taiwanese international students: Acculturation level and
vocational identity. Journal of Career Development, 27(1), 35-47.
Shin, H. & Abell, N. (1999). The homesickness and Contentment Scale: Developing a Culturally
Sensitive Measure of Adjustment for Asians. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(1), 45-60.
Skudlarek, L.J. (1992). An examination of selected variables associated with completion of
requirements for a doctorate in education. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin.
Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students’ academic achievement.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24, 56-68.
Social Science Research Council. (1954). Acculturation: An exploratory formulation. American
Anthropologist, 56, 973-1002.

139

Sodowsky, G.,R., & Plake, B.,S. (1992). A Study of Acculturation Differences Among
International People and Suggestions for Sensitivity to Within-Groups Differences. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 71(1), 53-59.
Sorenson, G. & Kagan, D. (1987). Conflicts between doctoral candidates and their sponsors.
Journal of Higher Education, 38, 17-24.
Stephan, P., E., & Levin, S.G. (2005). Foreign scholars in US science: Contributions and costs”.
In: Science and the University, eds. R. Ehrenberg and P. Stephan, Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin Press.
Strang, K., D. (2009). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of
international doctorate students. International Journal of Educational Research, 48 (4), 245257.
The National Academies. (2005). Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and
Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press.
Tinto,V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Trice, A. (2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: the benefits and
challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2003(7), 379-403.
Trice, A. (2004). Mixing it up: international graduate students’ social interaction with American
students. Journal of College Student Development, 45 (6), 671-687.
Trice, A., & Yoo, J. (2007). International graduate students’ perceptions of their academic
experience. Journal of Research in International Education, 6 (1), 41-66.
U.S. Department of State. (2010). Student Visas. Retrieved December, 10, 2010 at
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1268.html.
Wan, T., Chapman, D. W., & Biggs, D. A. (1992). Academic stress of international students
attending U. S. universities. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 607-623.
Wang, Y., Martin, M. A., & Martin, S. H. (2002). Understanding Asian graduate students'
English literacy problems. College Teaching, 50(3), 97-101.
Ward, C., Bochner, S. & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.).
London: Routledge.

140

Wei, M., Heppner, P.P., Mallen, M.J., Ku, T., Liao, Y., & Wu, T. (2007). Acculturative Stress,
Perfectionism, Years in the United States, and Depression Among Chinese International
Students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 385-394.
Wilton, L., & Constantine, M. (2003). Length of residence, cultural adjustment difficulties and
psychological distress symptoms in Asian and Latin American international college student.
Journal of College Counseling, 6(2), 177-186.
World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Wright, L.M. (1991). Full-time teaching and the ABD phenomenon. ACA Bulletin 76, 49-55.
Xu, M. (1991). The impact of English-language proficiency on international graduate student’s
perceived academic difficult. Research in Higher Education, 32 (5), 557-570.
Zusman, A. (2005). Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first Century. In Altbach,
P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (ed.) 2nd edition. American Higher Education in the
Twenty-First Century Social, Political, and Economic Challenges (pp.115-160). Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

141